‘NYT’ landmark: Jewish philosophy prof says we ‘really ought to question’ Israel’s right to exist

Israel/Palestine
on 791 Comments

Our site keeps urging a mainstream conversation about Zionism. That’s the endpoint of our work, questioning that almost-religiously-held belief. Well, last night, the New York Times‘s opinionator blog published a bold piece by Joseph Levine, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, saying that we have to question the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state–and pretty much concluding that it doesn’t have such a right.

Mind you the piece appears in the Opinionator’s philosophical section, which I see is called The Stone, and though it begins by asserting that Levine was raised in a Zionist home, it is a calm and logical disquisition, explaining why Jews do not deserve self-determination inside a state created in the Middle East, up until the end, when Levine arrives at the actual conditions of Palestinians, including the Nakba, and says that these abuses were “unavoidable” in the constitution of a Jewish state.

“I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic.”

Writes Donna Nevel, who sent this to me:

I think it’s important that these positions are becoming more visible and it’s becoming much harder (though we know too well they still try!) for the Jewish establishment (and AIPAC, etc.) to silence and marginalize these discussions or pretend that views like this don’t reflect similar perspectives of  an increasingly large segment of the Jewish community.

Here are excerpts. Go to the Times for the entire thing:

Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means….

My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist…

But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state [is anti-Semitic because it] amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained…

But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens..

Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group…

I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic…

There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state.

The piece is reminiscent of other Jewish landmarks/awakenings: Tony Judt writing 10 years ago in the New York Review of Books, territory the journal has never sought to lay claim to, that the Jewish state is an anachronism, Brian Klug’s great essay, “On saying that Israel has a right to exist,” which we republished two years ago. Once the media begin stating this argument more regularly, calmly and honestly, you’re going to be stunned by how many young Americans sign on.

791 Responses

  1. just
    March 10, 2013, 11:16 am

    Thank you Mr. Levine, Phil and Donna Nevel.

    This gives me hope. I sincerely hope that many from both sides of the I/P “issue” read this.
    I cannot wait for many people to be “stunned” at how many folks discard the odious and barbaric status quo.

    The more that Jewish folks “come out” against apartheid, the false entitlement and the unsustainability of the present zionist state of Israel, the better off the world will be.

    • Krauss
      March 10, 2013, 5:04 pm

      Israel itself will help. Yesh Atid is the last gasp of the secular Israeli middle class.
      And even now they’re forced to break bread with Bennett’s far-right religious party in order to have any chance at all. The hilarious thing is that it is being presented as “anti-Orthodox” but it isn’t. It’s anti-Haredi and that’s a difference.

      Second, Israel is hugely expensive as a country. There’s no space and the rests are astronomical. I’ve read one study that showed that Israeli participation in American, Canadian, British and Australian on the professorial level is off the charts on a per-capita basis. The well-eductated get out first. The rest follows, to the best of their ability.

      Despite all the Israel hype, very few actually make aliyah. Maybe you go on Birthright to have some sex, get drunk and wave a few flags. That’s it.

      Let me just close by saying this: I wouldn’t be surprised at all, if, 10 years from now we’d be having Congress working itself up to provide “emancipation” to Jewish “refugees” from Israel to settle in America at various rates.

      They’re already introducing legislation which would give Israel a special privilege so that they won’t even need a visa to get a job in America. Just move and start applying. And this is now. In 10 years from now you could very well see outright amnesty.

      • Ellen
        March 10, 2013, 11:41 pm

        10 years from now? It is already happening and has been for some time. Take a close look at the immigration law industry in New York. And more importantly the new fast track method for Israeli’s to get a residence visa for the USA:

        US President Barack Obama yesterday signed into law legislation allowing Israeli citizens to obtain E-2 investor visas, to which they were not previously eligible. Under the E-2 visa, Israelis will be able to invest in a new or existing operating business in the US an amount that could be less than the price of an apartment in greater Tel Aviv,

        link to globes.co.il

  2. OlegR
    March 10, 2013, 11:28 am

    הכלבים נובחים השיירה עוברת…

    • Fritz
      March 10, 2013, 1:11 pm

      But also: Many dogs, rabbit’s death.

      • OlegR
        March 10, 2013, 7:18 pm

        Eeee what’s up doc ?

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 10, 2013, 9:59 pm

        “Eeee what’s up doc ?”
        Don’t like it when you’re given the change for your money, Oleg?

    • Annie Robbins
      March 10, 2013, 2:44 pm

      yeah, the caravan will probably be movin’ on alrighty, eventually. and the ones who will be stickin’ round will be the same ones who’ve been there for centuries, and i don’t mean as the place holders (as in, ‘there’s been a continuous presence yada yada’) i mean as that 95% of the population who lived there for the last couple thousand years.

      • OlegR
        March 10, 2013, 7:18 pm

        /95% of the population who lived there for the last couple thousand years./ Who were they exactly ?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 11:17 pm

        palestinians, of course. which as you know always included jews, just not very many. and the ones who were there were not european.

      • OlegR
        March 11, 2013, 4:14 am

        You really shouldn’t let your political opinions interfere with your history reading Annie.
        Then you wouldn’t make such silly statements.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 7:10 am

        oh really. gee, from listening to your political cohorts oleg, one might imagine i need no history lessons at all outside of some biblical texts:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        i could learn as much from standing in front of a brick wall my whole life and studying the indents in the various curvatures.

      • OlegR
        March 11, 2013, 7:28 am

        I don’t have political cohorts Annie.
        But this argument is getting rather silly as usual so i’ll just quit.
        You have fun…

      • Ecru
        March 11, 2013, 7:57 am

        Oooh OlegR you really should be careful, there’s plenty of historians and archaeologists and probably anthropologists commenting on this site who actually DO know the historical record.

        The consensus is that Palestinians are the acculturated descendants of Levantine populations who’ve been there since the Neolithic.

        The historical and archaeological records show NO depopulation event (nope not even in the Roman period) that could have drastically changed the make-up of the general population of the area. The closest is a depopulation around the area of Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt but even that was balanced by increased population in neighbouring areas such as the Galilee and the Golan. In other words, most people were shifted LOCALLY. Unless you maintain the Romans shipped in Jews every so often for a bit of historical re-enactment during the later revolts? Simply, the Roman Empire didn’t have the logistic capability to ethnically cleanse and entire province (genocide yes (Dacia/Carthage), ethnic cleanse no) and even if it had it would have been a militarily disastrous idea to do so to its only land link to Egypt and on its border with Persia. The Romans simply weren’t that stupid.

        There’s not even evidence of large scale immigration sufficient to change to underlying core population and the molecular archaeology supports that view with Levantine populations (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) clustering together.

        Oh and may I remind you that the Levant was never a mono-ethnic area, that Jews were NEVER the only population to be found there.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 1:55 pm

        @Ecru – – Good points. We should bear in mind that the people of a territory were valuable to the rulers (and owners) of that terrtory. Unless they caused too much trouble, ceaselessly.
        Carthage as a city was destroyed. The people of the Carthagenian empire became the people of part of the Roman Empire.
        And yes, Palestinians today descent in part from Jews living in Palestine 2000 years ago.

      • hammersmith
        March 31, 2013, 3:08 am

        No, OlegR, Annie has her history right. Try reading Slomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People. Truth is the Palestinians probably have a stronger genetic connection to the Jews of the Bible than these Israeli interlopers do.

      • Cliff
        March 31, 2013, 8:06 am

        OlegR,

        How many Jews lived in Palestine prior to the waves of Jewish immigration vis a vis the Zionist movement?

        How many Palestinian Arabs lived in Palestine until the Nakba?

        Should be easy for you to both find the numbers and provide a source, since you’re such an educated, intelligent and honest individual!

      • Obsidian
        March 31, 2013, 9:21 am

        So you can exclude from ‘palestinians’, those Circassians, Bosnians, Egyptians, Sudanese, Syrians, Turks and Algerians who emigrated to ‘Palestine’ in the 19th century.

    • W.Jones
      March 10, 2013, 6:48 pm

      “The dogs bark the caravan moves on …”
      Is the comparison to dogs demeaning?

      • OlegR
        March 10, 2013, 8:40 pm

        If you want it to be…
        Though that is not the point in this metaphore

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 11:21 pm

        if he wants it to be? you say it’s not the point of the metaphore, but the dogs are the palestinians are they not? can you offer me an analogy of jews as dogs you would not call anti semitic? don’t lie, your analogy is a demeaning one isn’t it? and your point is to say we rule, we are here to stay. no?

      • OlegR
        March 11, 2013, 7:33 am
      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 8:01 am

        @ Oleg please peruse the graph in this article:
        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

  3. pabelmont
    March 10, 2013, 11:35 am

    I think Levine is suggesting (or “saying”) that Israeli Jews have no “right” — after all, this is an article about “rights” — to exclude the excludees (refugees, exiles) of 1948 and 1967, to occupy the occupied territories o9f Gaza, West Bank including east Jerusalem, and the Golan, and to enforce discriminatory laws against non-Jews (and, in a fashion I didn’t understand, against ultra-orthodox or some such).

    In a word, Israeli Jews have no right to rule their roost in an anti-democratic manner. Or, as he says elsewhere, to rule it in a “Jewish” manner, whatever that might mean.

    For him Israel must be ruled in an Israeli manner, democratically, the country of all its citizens and, indeed, of all its proper citizens (there are those pesky excludees again). And — if so ruled — Israel has a “right to exist”.

    Yeah, team, way to go.

    • David Doppler
      March 10, 2013, 1:46 pm

      Thank you Pabelmont,

      Why must Levine couch his discussion in terms of whether Israel has a “right to exist?” as opposed to whether Israel, or any country, has a right to privilege one religious/ethnic group over its other peoples. “Right to exist,” if denied, is so easily conflated and confused with extermination, fraught with memories of the Holocaust, as to immediately shut down conversation. See the comment that follows. “Right” to discriminate against other ethnic/religious groups is what is being debated. The rest is distracting noise.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 10, 2013, 6:26 pm

        However we frame the issue, the Zionists will always respond: “What you are saying amounts to denying Israel’s right to exist!” That is supposed to make us so scared that we retract. Levine takes the bull by the horns and replies: “So what?”

        “No right to exist” sounds like destruction and extermination, but what is being denied the right to exist is not a group of people but a specific state regime. When a state has a geographical name, like South Africa, the state regime can be changed without changing the name of the country, and that is what happened when apartheid was abolished. If Israel were called, say, the East Mediterranean Republic, the Zionist regime could be dismantled without changing the name of the state. Then we could say: “We don’t deny the right of the EMR to exist, God forbid! But we want to change the legal-political regime. Regime change is supposed to be a good thing, isn’t it?” But “Israel” refers to a specific ethnic-religious group and by implication to a state that privileges that group, so how can we avoid “denying the right of Israel to exist”?

      • Sumud
        March 10, 2013, 9:32 pm

        But “Israel” refers to a specific ethnic-religious group and by implication to a state that privileges that group, so how can we avoid “denying the right of Israel to exist”?

        Don’t even engage on that level. It is a bogus right confected by zionists. No country has the ‘right to exist’.

        Existence is not a on rights-based proposition – a thing either exists or it doesn’t.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 11:31 pm

        the concept of a ‘right to exist’ was recently fabricated. it’s not anything anyone talked about until some pr guy thought it up last century. and now we’ve heard it sooo many times (as you mention the programming “sounds like destruction and extermination”). but let’s be clear, it’s a propaganda initiative. a very successful one at that. but there’s no basis for it, other than to sustain and justify colonization.

      • lysias
        March 11, 2013, 1:47 pm

        When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, that didn’t imply the extinction of any of its peoples.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Absolutely. In fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union made it more likely the Russian Federation could keep its historic Russian character.

      • Carowhat
        March 11, 2013, 12:24 am

        Why must Levine couch his discussion in terms of whether Israel has a “right to exist?”

        Well you are right. No country has a right to exist. Countries don’t come into existence because of rights anyway. They exist because someone had the power to take the land from someone else and so he did. It’s always been that way–with all countries. That being said, it has always seemed to me that when Israel asserts its right to exist it is asserting a good deal more than merely to have what other countries have.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 7:28 pm

        Countries sometimes came into existence simply because the ruler of a country divided it among several sons. Some countries merged with other countries, due to marriage of one ruler with another.

      • sardelapasti
        March 11, 2013, 3:15 am

        Doppler – “Why must Levine couch his discussion in terms of whether Israel has a “right to exist?” as opposed to whether Israel, or any country, has a right to privilege one religious/ethnic group over its other peoples. ”

        Because it is what is being discussed, that’s why. There is no inherent right of the Zionits to invent a totally fictional “Jewish” people, as opposed to any of the legitimate cultural groupings. There is certainly no right for any of the Zionits (as opposed to Jewish Palestinians, there before the 1890s) to be there. So it is perfectly appropriate to call it what it is called.

        «“Right to exist,” if denied, is so easily conflated and confused with extermination, fraught with memories of the Holocaust, as to immediately shut down conversation. »

        So what? It is not our problem if anyone wants to distort it the way he wants –and of course Americans will always have “hurt feelings” whatever one does.

        This is not, repeat not an “it’s all about ME”, to say it like Miss Piggy. It is about Palestinians only and there is absolutely no need to make any room for Zionist requirements and sensitivities.
        Essentially, no right to be there may also mean this, according to some of the legitimate opinion: Get the hell out, either illegally immigrated or born here from the illegally immigrated, unless expressly authorized to stay by the laws to be adopted by an entirely sovereign state of Palestine, with adequate defenses so as not to be subject to blackmail.
        Until then, any restrictive constructions one puts on the concept are entirely one’s own.

    • SQ Debris
      March 14, 2013, 2:32 am

      Israel will be a “Jewish State” when every single individual under Israeli rule has a value of exactly one. Levine is on the right track. Of course that will mean that the xenophobic will flee. If they have to live in a non-segreatated society without ethnic privilege they will probably want to live somewhere that the majority population isn’t people that they have crapped on from a dizzying height for a hundred years. That ain’t rocket science. There are lots of foreclosed homes in my neighborhood. Ahlan wa Sahlan!

  4. NormanF
    March 10, 2013, 11:37 am

    Joseph Levine’s logic is of the sort that says Jews cannot exercise self-determination because Arab rights are going to be infringed. Now unless you have an empty continent somewhere, some people’s rights are inevitably going to be limited when someone else takes over their territory to exercise self-determination on it. This can describe virtually every country in the New World and Oceania.

    But he doesn’t employ his own standard to say no other country should exist because their self-determination is privileged above other claimants. No – he says only the Jews alone should not be able to exercise self-determination because in his mind the Arabs also have a claim. It should be noted nearly every country is a homeland for a particular ethnic people. The Arabs also constitute an ethnic group and a religious group and this is specified in the constitution of every Arab country. Dr. Levine doesn’t take issue with Arab ethno-domination and subjugation of minorities under their rule. He bristles only when the Jews exercise majority rule over their own homeland and grant the Arabs full minority rights. No one wants to live as a minority in someone else’s land – but the Arabs have options open to them the Jews don’t have.

    Put quite simply, Dr. Levine’s essay is a more sophisticated version of the classic anti-Semitic meme that Jewish national rights threaten the rights of others which is not true at all. When he argues only the Jews have no practical right to self-determination, the fallacy of his argument is patently clear to all to see. And it doesn’t improve with age.

    • Citizen
      March 10, 2013, 12:43 pm

      RE: “Joseph Levine’s logic is of the sort that says Jews cannot exercise self-determination because Arab rights are going to be infringed. Now unless you have an empty continent somewhere, some people’s rights are inevitably going to be limited when someone else takes over their territory to exercise self-determination on it. This can describe virtually every country in the New World and Oceania.”

      True, there was no nearly empty continent except Antarctica when the Zionists decided they need their own hard land like other people have to call their own and operate as their haven from the slings and arrows of reality. But, 1948 was not far from 1945 and the subsequent Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials that set up as an international principle minimum guidelines, curbs on nation-state “self determination.” These basic international moral principles, the cost of which was the total dead in Two World Wars, are all that prevents current humanity from what Goering at Nuremberg called “Might make right.” That is, the stone age, which de facto lasted until the defeat of the Axis powers by 1945. Israel in this context, is a rogue state. And it certainly acts as such. The irony is that it pretends to be a part of Western society, civilization. And America supports this. The right of a people or any individual to self-determination is not a blank check.

      • NormanF
        March 10, 2013, 4:40 pm

        The Jews were grandfathered in by the Palestine Mandate which was approved by the League Of Nations in 1922 – as a pre-1945 trusteeship and Art. 80 of the UN Charter specifically allowed it to stand. The Jews were one of the many peoples in the former Turkish Empire promised independence. This is what they received when the British relinquished the Mandate in 1948.

      • Inanna
        March 10, 2013, 8:57 pm

        It wasn’t promised to the Jews of the ‘Turkic Empire’ It was promised to English and European Jews. By people who had no business promising someone else’s land. Remember that ‘the bride is beautiful but she belongs to another man’.

      • RoHa
        March 10, 2013, 9:39 pm

        “The Jews were one of the many peoples in the former Turkish Empire promised independence. ”

        Nonsense. Most Jews lived outside the Turkish Empire.

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:02 am

        There were Jews living in Ottoman Palestine. Jerusalem had a Jewish majority long before the rest of the country did. The Jews had two factors that helped them: they had ties to the land and a sense of national consciousness. And Zionism was perceived in England and the US as a liberal form of nationalism that would ultimately address the “Jewish question” that bedeviled the 19th Century. Put all of those things together, Israel’s creation was the end result of a long historical process, which led to the only non-Islamic people attaining freedom and independence in a completely Islamic region. The consequences of that are still very much with us today.

      • sardelapasti
        March 11, 2013, 3:20 am

        Norman Eff – Into science-fiction again, are we? There was no “Turkish Empire” anytime. There never was a promise of independence. The mandate charter had no clause predisposing for any Zionist state. What is the next chapter of your science-fiction novel? A partition proposal that was not rejected by the Zionists, I imagine.

      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 8:15 am

        Norman F: Prof Shlomo Sand makes a far more reasoned argument:

        Shlomo Sand: “You know Zionism is somewhere I can say is a modern movement a very anti Jewish movement because Judaism could not accept a nation state that could be called Jewish state then Judaism is not Zionism and Zionism is not Judaism and by the way all the establishment of Judaism at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century were anti Zionist it was clear to them until 2nd WW”.

        Prof Shlomo Sand On the ‘Romans exiled Jews from Palestine’: “This is a myth, a lie because there is not even one book that speaks of the exile by the Romans the Jews are mostly converts and were not expelled from Palestine and they didn’t want to go to Palestine it was a very important place for them as a holy place but Mecca is also a very holy place for Muslims and the Ganges is a very important place for the Hindus. The promised land was not a homeland for the Jew”

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 1:10 pm

        Jerusalem had a Jewish majority long before the rest of the country did.

        long? what’s your definition of long norm. maybe you should review the graph blake posted up thread and tell us for how looooong the majority existed before 1948. and while you’re at it, don’t forget palestinians didn’t often count in the british census, for taxation purposes or something. i can’t recall.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        and what’s the relevance anyway?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 1:45 pm

        Weren’t Christians a majority of the population of Jerusalem prior to First World War?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Turkish Empire is same thing as Ottoman Empire, generally speaking.

        Purpose of League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, was for Britain to prepare the people of that country for independence – – not to import a replacement population.

      • Light
        March 11, 2013, 1:59 pm

        And Zionism was perceived in England and the US as a liberal form of nationalism that would ultimately address the “Jewish question” that bedeviled the 19th Century.

        NormanF, Zionism was not perceived as a solution to the “Jewish question” in the US. It was opposed by the majority of American Jews until 1947 or later. Perhaps you can comment on some of these articles from the NY Times

        link to query.nytimes.com

        or this one in particular.

        link to query.nytimes.com

      • RoHa
        March 11, 2013, 11:44 pm

        “There were Jews living in Ottoman Palestine.”

        They were Palestinian Jews, and would have gained independence had Palestine been given its independence after WW1.

        But during the British Mandate period a bunch of European foreigners who had never been part of the Turkish Empire pushed into the country.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:38 am

        The Jews were one of the many peoples in the former Turkish Empire promised independence.

        False. There was no promise of Jewish independence.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:41 am

        Jerusalem had a Jewish majority long before the rest of the country did

        Jews only became a majority in Jerusalem in 1850.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 2:02 pm

        @Shingo – – Very true. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine called upon Britain to prepare the Palestinians for independence.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 11:42 am

        Jews only became a majority in Jerusalem in 1850

        Interesting that it happened without Zionism, isn’t it? The First Aliyah was still 30 years in the future.

      • hammersmith
        March 31, 2013, 3:11 am

        A nice, self serving, perspective.

    • sardelapasti
      March 10, 2013, 1:05 pm

      Norman Eff – “Jews cannot exercise self-determination” Exactly, they can’t. Not in the last centuries, at least. Have you heard anything as absurd as a religious community determining that it wants someone else’s land, not only to live but also to rule on? And what happens to the apostates? What do they do to those who stop practicing the religion and aren’t Jews anymore? Deport them or burn them? Norman Eff, this is too much even for science-fiction. I’d write about little green men from Mars if I were in your shoes, that’s more plausible.

      • NormanF
        March 10, 2013, 4:45 pm

        The Vatican and Pakistan are states founded for a religion. What makes the Jews ineligible to exercise self-determination? The principle is the same under international law and if you say they can’t have it, then the Vatican and Pakistan have no right to exist – its absurd to allow Catholics and Muslims to claim sovereignty over a given territory. But you are not honest enough to put forward the argument.

      • Sumud
        March 10, 2013, 10:10 pm

        The Vatican and Pakistan are states founded for a religion. What makes the Jews ineligible to exercise self-determination?

        More to the point – what makes Palestinians ineligible to exercise self-determination?

        Once again, it isn’t “jewish self-determination” you want but jewish supremacism, at the expense of the indigenous population.

        On Pakistan, it does not have the right to exist, and it does not seek to claim this right to exist, because it is a bogus concept. Pakistan is 97% muslim and if the majority choose to call the country “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” so be it. Pakistan still does not have, and can’t claim a “right to exist”.

        As it happens there are religious minorities in Pakistan and a mix of different ethnic groups, and unlike Israel none of them are denied voting rights based on their religion or ethnic group.

        I’m sure if the Punbabis (currently about 45% of the population) declared under the banner of “Punjabi self-determination” that the rights of all other groups were abolished there would be hell to pay, and rightly so.

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 2:41 am

        Sumud says: …and unlike Israel none of them are denied voting rights based on their religion or ethnic group.
        ========================
        Please explain how and which Israelis are denied voting rights based on their religion or ethnic group.

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:11 am

        Minorities in Pakistan – the Shia Muslims, Christians and Hindus are constantly persecuted and neither their lives nor their property are safe.

        There is nothing analogous in Israel – Arabs have freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate and vote and can take part in all social endeavors. There is certainly discrimination but there is no mass Jewish violence directed at the Arabs.

        Ironically enough, those who advocate Israel’s dismantlement would have the Jewish State replaced not with a secular pluralistic state but with an Islamist tyranny of the kind Hamas runs in Gaza. The anti-Israel crowd’s support of the Palestinians has nothing to do with seeking equality or more democratic freedoms for them.

        Israel is an imperfect free society in a region filled with vicious dictatorships and medieval religious regimes. There are plenty of liberal arguments that can be invoked to support Israel. There are none to justify supporting its enemies that deny their own people and their own minorities democratic freedoms and human rights under the sun.

      • sardelapasti
        March 11, 2013, 3:47 am

        Norman Eff – Ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Why don’t you get someone with average or so intelligence who has been outside the Zionist bubble to read and explain it to you?

      • sardelapasti
        March 11, 2013, 3:51 am

        Sumud – The real basic point is that the Zionists have no right at all to be there and that’s it. Not even as non-supremacists. Maybe there is a legal point to make about those who had all their British immig documents in order before 47, but that doesn’t really look too convincing either.

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 8:55 am

        Please explain how and which Israelis are denied voting rights based on their religion or ethnic group.

        Don’t distort what I said mondonut.

        Fact: in the occupied West Bank if you are jewish you get to vote in Israeli elections, if you are not jewish, you don’t. Simple.

        46 years after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza commenced don’t bother telling me the only reason is to do with Israeli citizenship – it isn’t. Occupied Palestinians are defacto Israelis with zero rights because of their religion.

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 8:58 am

        Minorities in Pakistan – the Shia Muslims, Christians and Hindus are constantly persecuted and neither their lives nor their property are safe.

        Care to back that up with some sources or citations?

        Ironically enough, those who advocate Israel’s dismantlement would have the Jewish State replaced not with a secular pluralistic state but with an Islamist tyranny of the kind Hamas runs in Gaza.

        Ditto.

        Just saying stuff doesn’t make it true you know.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 12:59 pm

        Don’t distort what I said mondonut.

        he knows perfectly well the israeli government rules over millions of people who have no voice in that government, he crafts his questions expressly to weasle out of that little factoid by inserting ‘ Israelis ‘ knowing very well the government even privileges israeli nationals over citizenship for the purpose of crafting laws that allow jews …even more rights!

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 1:09 pm

        Sumud says: Don’t distort what I said mondonut. Fact: in the occupied West Bank if you are jewish you get to vote in Israeli elections, if you are not jewish, you don’t. Simple.
        ==============================================
        Those are not facts. They are not even remotely correct. Non-Israeli Jewish residents of the West Bank (yes, they exist) are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. Conversely, non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are allowed to vote.

        The requirement to vote is to be Israeli, not Jewish.

      • ritzl
        March 11, 2013, 1:49 pm

        Israel occupies the WB and is never going to give it up. Palestinians in the WB cannot vote in Israeli elections, yet, if it even needs explaining at this point, settlers who live a few meters away, can.

        Oh, I see your selective term was “Israelis.” How convenient.

        It would be instructive to see Palestinians in EJ (which, according to all Israeli governments is never ever going to be part of any notional Palestinian state) start to demand the vote and see what the Israeli response would be. (Note: I realize the internal political conflicts in EJ Palestinian residents doing that, but a decision point is coming soon).

      • Citizen
        March 11, 2013, 2:25 pm

        @ mondonut:
        What you say is not correct either:

        West Bank:
        325,500 Jews (citizens, living in Area C): have voting rights
        1,855,115 Palestinians living in areas A, B, C: no voting rights

        East Jerusalem
        186,929 Jews (citizens): have voting rights
        255,000 Palestinians (residents): no voting rights for Knesset elections, but can vote in Jerusalem municipal elections.

        For a full look at who gets to vote in Israel’s democracy, see: link to 972mag.com

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 2:25 pm

        ritzl says: Palestinians in the WB cannot vote in Israeli elections, yet, if it even needs explaining at this point, settlers who live a few meters away, can. It would be instructive to see Palestinians in EJ start to demand the vote and see what the Israeli response would be.
        ===========================================
        Correct. Israelis can vote in Israel elections, non-Israelis cannot. Citizenship requirements are pretty much the rule everywhere on Planet Earth. As for EJ, I believe the Palestinians there are entitled to request Israeli citizenship which would in turn provide them the right to vote in Israeli elections.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:31 pm

        @mondonut – – But Israel does try to ensure the illegal settlers in the West Bank are “Jews”. Correct?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:35 pm

        Debate at Oxford University last month, on the motion: “Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank”.

      • tokyobk
        March 11, 2013, 2:57 pm

        You are either for expulsions and ethnic cleansing or against it them.

        If you think Arabs naturally belong in Israel but a “non-supremacist zionist,” does not, even if her or his parents were there for generations, then you are not arguing for a one democratic state of all its citizens.

        I think fortunately most people here do believe that anyone willing to obey an equal law in Palestine can belong.

      • Cliff
        March 11, 2013, 3:20 pm

        so tokbk

        u believe in a Jewish Law of Return for Jews based on being Jews only

        but you dont believe in a RoR for Palestinians and their descendants who have tangible – and not abstract – claims to the land Israel occupies, steals?

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 3:34 pm

        Citizen says: What you say is not correct either:
        ========================================
        What you have there does not dispute my assertion. Israeli Arabs (presumably self-identifying as Palestinian) residing in Jerusalem have full voting rights, you simply chose not to list them is your population survey.

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 3:35 pm

        James Canning says: @mondonut – – But Israel does try to ensure the illegal settlers in the West Bank are “Jews”. Correct?
        =============================================
        I have no idea. And that is entirely off topic.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 4:01 pm

        “Correct. Israelis can vote in Israel elections, non-Israelis cannot.”

        And that distinction is based on bigoted ethno-religious grounds. Good to see that you’re coming around to see the fact that the israeli are bigots and have created an apartheid regime.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 4:05 pm

        “There is nothing analogous in Israel”

        The israelis have stolen Palestinian land as a matter of public policy since 1948. The Jews have regularly attacked, assaulted, and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians since before that time.

      • JennieS
        March 11, 2013, 4:48 pm

        6. Are absentee ballots permitted?

        Israeli law does not provide for absentee ballots and in general, voting takes place only on Israeli soil. Exceptions are made for Israeli citizens serving abroad on official business who can vote in 96 Israeli embassies and consulates or on Israeli ships.
        link to mfa.gov.il

        So Israel;i citizens outside of Israel cannot vote unless they are on official business or living in the occupied territories.

      • gamal
        March 11, 2013, 5:16 pm

        “If you think Arabs naturally belong in Israel” why do Zionist have to litter their language with euphemisms, who are these Arabs TBK who belong, apparently so some people say, in Israel, no mentoin legal or property rights, or crimes, lets all just be natural.

        How about limiting the people of Palestine to those who legally have a right to there that is not based on some criminal enterprise.

        “even if his or her parents were…” ah equality, well

        what you are not able to stand is the notion that it is up to the Palestinians to decide whom they will accept, horror, equality tbk man stop being so mealymouthed and spit it out. Arabs! you cheeky little messer.

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 10:01 pm

        Norman F & mondonut – aren’t *any* of you going to address my question???

        What makes Palestinians ineligible to exercise self-determination?

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 10:23 pm

        Those are not facts. They are not even remotely correct. Non-Israeli Jewish residents of the West Bank (yes, they exist) are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. Conversely, non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are allowed to vote.

        The requirement to vote is to be Israeli, not Jewish.

        Trying to claim Israel isn’t a jewish supremacist state on a technicality does not work mondonut. It’s about as convincing a demolishing 25,000 Palestinians homes since 1967 and trying to blame it on planning laws, as if this is all some terrible unintended consequene.

        Fact: If there are non-Israeli jewish residents in the West Bank (no proof offered by yourself of course), then they are non-Israeli by choice and can easily claim Israeli citizenship via the law of return, and then vote in Israeli elections. The Palestinian whose land the zionist squatter has stolen has no such right and the sole reason is because they aren’t jewish.

        Really dismal mondonut – next you’ll be arguing that because different interpretations of the Nuremburg laws allowed some jews to escape the shoah, the nazis weren’t anti-semitic.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:44 am

        The requirement to vote is to be Israeli, not Jewish.

        hence the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian majority in 1947/8.

      • mondonut
        March 12, 2013, 12:00 pm

        Woody Tanaka says: And that distinction is based on bigoted ethno-religious grounds. Good to see that you’re coming around to see the fact that the israeli are bigots and have created an apartheid regime.
        ===================================
        Not true at all. Non-Jewish Israelis have full voting rights, no different than anyone else. The distinction you refer to as “bigoted” is a nearly universal truth on this planet, citizens of states (and only citizens) vote within national elections.

      • mondonut
        March 12, 2013, 12:04 pm

        Sumud says: Norman F & mondonut – aren’t *any* of you going to address my question??? What makes Palestinians ineligible to exercise self-determination?
        ===========================================
        I checked, you never asked that question. But now that you have – the Palestinians should not be ineligible to exercise self-determination. There should be two states for two peoples.

      • sardelapasti
        March 12, 2013, 12:51 pm

        nut – ” the Palestinians should not be ineligible to exercise self-determination. There should be two states for two peoples.”

        Wrong answer. The entirety of the land of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians to rule over. If “self-determination”, then however many states they determine that they want on their land are all Palestinian. Not of some invaders.

      • eljay
        March 12, 2013, 1:21 pm

        >> … the Palestinians should not be ineligible to exercise self-determination. There should be two states for two peoples.

        That’s right, two states for two peoples: Palestinians and Israelis.

        “Jewish State” is not a people.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 2:37 pm

        “There should be two states for two peoples.”

        And no doubt, mondonut, you would ascribe no limitations on the power of either state; that is, that you would not require either state to be demilitarized, would not preclude either state from holding nuclear weapons, would not require either state from ceding control over its airspace, resources, coasts, borders and so forth. Right?

        I mean, your “two states for two people” stuff isn’t just a bunch of nonsense calcifying the subjugation of Palestinian self-determination under the zionist jackboot, right?

      • Sumud
        March 12, 2013, 9:51 pm

        I checked, you never asked that question.

        Yes, I did:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        But now that you have – the Palestinians should not be ineligible to exercise self-determination. There should be two states for two peoples.

        And Palestinian Israelis? How do they exercise their right to self-determination? Or are you in favour of further ethnic cleansing? Are you in favour of dismantling of the settlements to enable a Palestinian state?

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:21 pm

        mondonut – – Israelis who are not Jews are not allowed to join the illegal colonies in the West Bank. True?

      • mondonut
        March 14, 2013, 9:40 am

        Woody Tanaka says: that is, that you would not require either state to be demilitarized, would not preclude either state from holding nuclear weapons, would not require either state from ceding control over its airspace, resources, coasts, borders and so forth. Right?
        =========================================
        Actually I would expect the Palestinians to remain effectively demilitarized for some period of time, much the same as post war Japan. Small price to pay for a state.

      • mondonut
        March 14, 2013, 9:43 am

        Sumud says: I checked, you never asked that question.
        Yes, I did:
        link to mondoweiss.net
        ==============================
        Too funny. Let me clarify, you never asked it of me. As for Palestinian Israelis, they will (I assume) be free to move to Palestine if they choose. Otherwise they can remain Israeli where they no doubt would enjoy greater freedom and opportunity.

      • mondonut
        March 14, 2013, 9:44 am

        eljay says:That’s right, two states for two peoples: Palestinians and Israelis.
        “Jewish State” is not a people.
        ==========================================
        Glad to see that you are no longer part of the 1ss crowd.

      • sardelapasti
        March 15, 2013, 9:33 pm

        tokyok – “If you think Arabs naturally belong in Israel but a “non-supremacist zionist,” does not, even if her or his parents were there for generations, then you are not arguing for a one democratic state of all its citizens.”

        Oh sure I do, and I will call the “Israel” citizenship law to testify for me.

        No immigrant is given Israel citizenship if not recognized “Jewish”. Said immigrant may be born in Israel, but keeps the parental citizenship, say, Filipino (if the would-be immigrant was born right there, or is an offspring of said local people, but not “Jewish” then s/he cannot even immigrate. Or even be in transit to the West Bank.) And gets deported at will, see the domestic workers imported as slaves to replace Palestinians, and deported with their children.

        Sorry state of things, no? But then, many states choose the “right of blood”, or jus sanguis, as the basis for citizenship. It is perfectly legitimate in our day, and applied by many countries –most of them way more democratic than the US, if you are interested in ‘democracy’.

        Now, there is no fully sovereign representation or state of the owners of the land, who are NOT the invader Zionists but did include some 7% Jewish people back then. Only such a fully sovereign state of Palestine will reliably determine if to apply the right of blood or that of birthplace to citizenship and immigration. Until then, the Meisterrasse population can get out. I am sure that a fully sovereign Palestinian state, confident and able to defend itself, will prove to be extremely tolerant if we (we, because all of us in the US are part of the Zionist invasion) sometime stop abusing their patience.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 15, 2013, 11:56 pm

        I would expect the Palestinians to remain effectively demilitarized for some period of time, much the same as post war Japan.

        then it’s israel that should be demilitarized.

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 2:19 pm

        But you I assume do not expect Israel to agree to be demilitarized.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 16, 2013, 3:25 pm

        “Actually I would expect the Palestinians to remain effectively demilitarized for some period of time, much the same as post war Japan. Small price to pay for a state.”

        So, in other words, you “two states for two people” nonsense is simply bs to calcify judeosupremacism in Palestine. Typical zionist racist. Got it.

        And, stupid analogy. If there was any equal to the Japanese in WWII, it would be the European Jews who waged a war of aggression on the people of Palestine. The Palestinians were like the Chinese who suffered the invasion and war crimes at the hands of the Japanese.

      • mondonut
        March 16, 2013, 5:47 pm

        Annie Robbins says: then it’s israel that should be demilitarized.
        ==================================
        Sorry Annie, that does make any sense at all. Are you equating Israel with the losing side in a conflict that is seeking to emerge as a nation? And not the Palestinians?

      • mondonut
        March 16, 2013, 5:50 pm

        James Canning says: But you I assume do not expect Israel to agree to be demilitarized.
        ==========================================
        Of course not. Israel does not require an agreement with anyone to become a nation with sovereign territory. The Palestinians however do, and if a state was really what they wanted (and not to eliminate Israel) then it would be a very small price to pay.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:21 pm

        mondonut – – I think focus should be on Israel’s signing the NPT and getting rid of its nukes.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:23 pm

        mondonut – – I think Palestinian leaders generally comprehend Palestine would not be able to have an army or air force.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 2:04 pm

        james, where do you come up w/this stuff? you have so many hypothesis about what palestinians ‘understand’ will be that just happen to coincide with a zionist narrative..what’s next, are you going to say palestinians ‘understand’ certain settlements will be part of israel therefore what difference does it make if israel keeps expanding them? what ‘leaders’ do you mean anyway? the ones israel/us fund? or the ones palestinians respect.

      • MHughes976
        March 17, 2013, 2:52 pm

        If it is understood that the Palestinians are to be disarmed it is also understood that they will not be sovereign. Maybe non-sovereign status is endurable, even desired, if the real sovereign is seen as friendly, as in what we call the Falkland Islands. But it’s unendurable and cannot be accepted for ever if the real sovereign is fundamentally hostile as would be the case here. If the Palestinian leaders say or swear blind that they accept it, they’re only pretending. One trouble over the 2ss negotiations, also a pretence, is that the Israelis know that the terms they demand are so massively unfair that no Palestinian would accept them in his/her heart.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 6:17 pm

        mondonut – “Israel does not require an agreement with anyone to become a nation with sovereign territory. The Palestinians however do…”

        Guess what, Palestinians in general are smarter than what is still left of your pirates. They know very well that no agreement will ever be forthcoming, and they know that the invaders only want everything for themselves. More than a hundred years of invasion, occupation and war is lesson enough. They’ll fight on for full sovereignty and rights: if the Zionists don’t go away, the US will one day. One can only hope against hope that the Zionists don’t play the collective suicide bombers when the time comes. Some people also hope that they will not commit industrial-scale genocide.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 6:44 pm

        mondonut – “Are you equating Israel with the losing side…”
        Perish the thought. Vae victis! As Attila and your teacher Goering said, “might makes right”, and conquest is the only title you need. One can only be thankful to you guys.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 7:41 pm

        Palestine can be sovereign even if it has but a token army and no air force.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 7:55 pm

        Annie – – Do you pay attention to comments made by European diplomats who are in regular communication with Palestinian leaders? I do.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 11:08 pm

        again james: what ‘leaders’ do you mean anyway? the ones israel/us fund? or the ones palestinians respect.

      • Shingo
        March 18, 2013, 6:29 am

        Of course not. Israel does not require an agreement with anyone to become a nation with sovereign territory. The Palestinians however do

        According to what article of international law? BTW. Palestine already has agreements with over 100 countries.

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 1:56 pm

        @Annie – – You hav made clear history is not your strong suit, and diplomatic history in particular is an area you choose not to study. Fair statement?

        I think you hope Palestinian leaders demand a Palestinian army, to make a deal with Israel impossible. Fair statement?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 2:24 pm

        james, you’re refusing to qualify your statements by naming who you’re referencing when you speak of ‘Palestinian leaders’. fair statement?

        this is not a one way street. i have no interest in conversing with someone who ignores a simple request to explain who he’s referencing.

        again james: what ‘leaders’ do you mean anyway? the ones israel/us fund? or the ones palestinians respect.

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Annie – – European diplomats who talk to Palestinian leaders and obtain a good understanding of their thinking, do not necessarily disclose the names of those leaders.

        Are you aware Yassir Arafat in the early 1970s said privately that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders?

        I take it I am correct when I say you want the Palestinians leaders to block any deal with Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 2:39 pm

        I take it I am correct when I say you want the Palestinians leaders to block any deal with Israel.

        lol, you crack me up! you refuse to qualify who you’re referencing when you state ‘palestinian leaders’ and then make conjures about what i want!

        james, go bark up someone else’s skirt. i’m not game. see ya round.

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 7:32 pm

        @Annie – – Why would you object to being asked if you are aware that Yassir Arafat said in the early 1970s that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders?

        Perhaps you regard (or regarded) Yassir Arafat as a lackey of the US?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 8:01 pm

        @james, Why would you object to being asked what leaders you were referencing?

        perhaps the only palestinian leaders you regard are dead?

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 8:10 pm

        Canning – I think your sniveling, distorting propaganda has reached a summit.
        Just be clear and write in so many words: You want everyone here to pay obeisance to the Zionists by writing off all Palestinian rights, period. You have already accumulated a good number of these posts, with different pretexts, different admissions and “statements”with different “Arab” leaders, “Arab nations” and suchlike.
        When one writes to you that only a fully sovereign, non-blackmailable, armed, legitimate Palestinian government has the right to divest itself from anything (I didn’t say from the rights to it!) in any sovereign compromise, (i.e. not Mister Canning, not Ibn Suud and not Arafat), you systematically go deaf. Which is a naughty way to behave. And you turn back and accuse whoever reaffirms a principle of opposing Arafat, seeing him as a lackey of the US, etc. Typical Zionist tactics, only the operatives in those times were smarter than now.

        I suppose I wouldn’t be wrong telling you that you can report back that your mission is accomplished: irritating the hell out of a maximum of MW readers.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 1:25 am

        Sorry Annie, that does make any sense at all. Are you equating Israel with the losing side in a conflict

        yes, i think they will be on the loosing side.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        March 19, 2013, 3:16 am

        mondonut says:
        March 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm

        “Those are not facts. They are not even remotely correct. Non-Israeli Jewish residents of the West Bank (yes, they exist) are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. Conversely, non-Jewish Israeli residents of the West Bank are allowed to vote.

        The requirement to vote is to be Israeli, not Jewish.”

        And the requirement to be a Zionist apologist is to be extremely blinkered, as well as to be oh so very ****ing stupid.

        Please, there is NO true freedom of movement within “Israel”. Not for Jews or for anyone else, and certainly not for any of the extremely stupid Jews (yes, they exist) who are actually dumb enough to buy that whole “Israel” is a WHITE beacon of WHITE light that just wants to be allowed the right to shine all of its precious WHITE beams of WHITE light unto the nations propaganda bullshit.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 3:48 am

        James Canning “..I think you hope Palestinian leaders demand a Palestinian army, to make a deal with Israel impossible. Fair statement?”

        It’s an illogical statement actually in typical Ziocaine addled style.

        Israel is a UN Member State obliged to the UN Charter in its entirety, no exceptions. Israel has no more right to an army than any of its neighbours. Nor does it have any right to more defensible borders than its neighbours.

        The Palestinian have a legal right to an army. Israel has no legal right to demand the Palestinians do not have an army. It would be Israel making any deal impossible, by making demands that have no legal foundation.

      • eljay
        March 19, 2013, 8:56 am

        >> Glad to see that you are no longer part of the 1ss crowd.

        I’m glad you’re glad, but you’re also mistaken: I have never advocated for a 1ss, even though Zio-supremacists – thanks to their self-righteous supremacism and unquenchable greed for Palestinian land and resources – are making that outcome increasingly inevitable.

      • eljay
        March 19, 2013, 9:12 am

        >> I think Palestinian leaders generally comprehend Palestine would not be able to have an army or air force.

        IMO, a sovereign state of Palestine:
        – has a right to a military (army, navy, air force);
        – has an obligation to use its military might responsibly; and
        – must be held accountable for irresponsible or criminal actions carried out by its military on behalf of the government and people of Palestine.

        It’s a pity that nations like Israel and the U.S. aren’t held to these same standards.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 10:23 am

        “Of course not. Israel does not require an agreement with anyone to become a nation with sovereign territory. The Palestinians however do, and if a state was really what they wanted (and not to eliminate Israel) then it would be a very small price to pay.”

        Nonsense. The fact is that unless they have the ability to defend themselves, they will always be at the mercy of the blood-thirsty jackels to their west.

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 1:43 pm

        Woody – – Are you arguing that Palestine should have an army equipped with missiles able to take out aircraft flying over Israel?

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 1:46 pm

        eljay – – Do you think there is any chance an Israeli government would accept a Palestine possessing an army and an air force?

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 1:58 pm

        @sardelapast – – Let me ask you a question: are you aware Yassir Arafat tod his close aides forty years ago that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders? This is a matter of history, and your knowledge of that history.

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 2:02 pm

        @Sardelapasti – – How many “Zionists” argue that the presence of illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank should not change the borders of Palestine?

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 2:06 pm

        @Sardelapasti – – How many “Zionists” argue that the presence of illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank should not change the borders of Palestine?

        You appear to be arguing that the Palestinians can acheive the withdrawal of Israeli troops etc without entering into a treaty with Israel. Or, that such a treaty would allow Palestine to have an army, air force, etc etc.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 2:48 pm

        Demanding an army should not make a deal impossible.

        Israel shares borders with Egypt and Jordan – did Israel ask those two countries to demilitarize? So why should Palestine be held to a different standard in this regard?

        James, I’m a Zionist, and I don’t have a problem with Palestinians having their own military in their own borders (in the context of a two-state solution, for example).

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 2:48 pm

        Talknic – – Yes, one can say Israel would block any deal, by insisting that Palestine not have an army or air force. One can say there is ZERO chance any Israeli gov’t would make a deal allowing Palestine to have an army.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 3:41 pm

        One can say there is ZERO chance any elected Palestinian leader would make a deal not allowing Palestine to have an army.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 3:54 pm

        “One can say there is ZERO chance any elected Palestinian leader would make a deal not allowing Palestine to have an army.”

        Actually, I doubt that’s true. What would be the point of a Palestinian army? Deterrence? Killing Jews? Killing other Palestinians?

        One can say there is zero chance of any elected leader in the world signing on to an agreement that would allow a militarized state on its border where most of that state’s population is hostile.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 3:56 pm

        “Israel shares borders with Egypt and Jordan – did Israel ask those two countries to demilitarize? So why should Palestine be held to a different standard in this regard?”

        Really? You don’t understand the difference? The first is a state with 80 million people that was mostly run by its professionalized military. The second was never really an enemy in the first.

        What would this Palestinian army do?

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 7:52 pm

        goldmarx – – I too do not have a great problem with Palestine having a small army. However, I very much doubt any Israeli gov’t would accept this.

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 7:55 pm

        goldmarx – – My understanding is that no Israeli gov’t would accept possession of an army by an independent Palestine. Persoanlly, I would not object to a small Palestinian army.

      • James Canning
        March 19, 2013, 7:58 pm

        @Annie – – And the basis of your contention is ____________?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 9:55 pm

        there is zero chance of any elected leader in the world signing on to an agreement that would allow a militarized state on its border where most of that state’s population is hostile.

        no elected palestinian leader will ever sign a deal with israel eh. interesting coming from you hops.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 9:58 pm

        @ mondonut “Israel does not require an agreement with anyone to become a nation with sovereign territory”

        Correct. Independent sovereign statehood is completely unilateral.

        “The Palestinians however do”

        Is there a special course in hypocrisy and ignorance you had to attend? Or is it a result of there being no iodized salt in your diet.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 10:01 pm

        two way street james: what ‘leaders’ do you mean anyway? the ones israel/us fund? or the ones palestinians respect.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:57 pm

        Maybe I missed something, but both Egypt and Jordan have been militarized states on Israel’s borders, and the populations in both countries have been laregly hostile in expressed attitudes, usually citing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 20, 2013, 12:39 am

        “Killing Jews?”
        That old trick again, Hophmi? Have you no shame?

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 1:00 am

        Maybe I missed something, but both Egypt and Jordan have been militarized states on Israel’s borders

        “When they were handing out brains” joke goes here

        Go with your first impression, you’re definitely missing something alright.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 1:21 am

        What would this Palestinian army do?

        protect palestinian villages from fanatical judaist ‘settler’ ‘price tag’ attacks, for one. or don’t you recognize terrorism when the perps are jewish? are you lured in by the benign ‘settler’ ‘price tag’ framing?

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 1:30 am

        So the Palestinians have to reach a certain population quota now? This is like moving the goalposts just as the opposing team is about to score.

        The Palestinian army would do what any army does. It would undoubtedly become more professional over time (like Egypt), which would probably make them easier to fight, to separate it from the civilian population.

        Jordan was never an enemy? Odd, I recall Israel’s hasbarah saying something quite different during the 60s and 70s, having grown up in the US Zionist movement then.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 1:36 am

        “Price tag”? Not sure what that means – is this supposed to be a joke about how cheap Jews supposedly are?

        In any case, the two-state solution would include the evacuation of all the settlers (otherwise it won’t work), so they settler movement will be dead. Not sure how we get from that to settlers launching attacks.

      • talknic
        March 20, 2013, 1:36 am

        @ hophmi “What would be the point of a Palestinian army? Deterrence? Killing Jews? Killing other Palestinians?”

        Try … protecting Palestinian territory from Israeli belligerence.

        “One can say there is zero chance of any elected leader in the world signing on to an agreement that would allow a militarized state on its border where most of that state’s population is hostile”

        Uh huh. By that criteria Palestinians ought not sign an agreement with Israel, a state that using its military, has illegally acquired Palestinian territory by war, illegally annexed Palestinian territory, illegally settled Palestinian territory and protects its illegal settlers in Palestinian territory.

        There’s ALWAYS something missing from your narrative hophmi … now why would that be?

      • talknic
        March 20, 2013, 1:41 am

        @ hophmi ” You don’t understand the difference? The first is a state with 80 million people that was mostly run by its professionalized military. The second was never really an enemy in the first”

        Irrelevant. They’re UN Member States. Just for once read the UN Charter…. try not to insert your own words ..

        Article 2

        The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

        The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members .

        All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

        All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

        All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

      • eljay
        March 20, 2013, 7:42 am

        >> What would this Palestinian army do?

        A Palestinian military would, presumably, defend the borders, lands, citizens and rightful interests of the state of Palestine.

        And – unlike the Israeli military – it would presumably not:
        – employ terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state; or
        – engage in any campaigns of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 8:21 am

        you can just google ‘price tag attacks’, even wiki has and entry. these link have the origins of the phrase, which the settlers named their terrorism against palestinian villages in retribution for israeli governemnt settlement ‘freeze’ (09), and several links to hebrew msm w/translations.

        link to coteret.com

        link to coteret.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 8:26 am

        “‘“Price tag’? Not sure what that means – is this supposed to be a joke about how cheap Jews supposedly are?”

        Are you really this stupid?? For pete’s sakes, if you don’t know about the price tag attacks that the settler pigs launch on the Palestinians in the West Bank, then you really have no place pretending to have any valid opinion on the situation. It’s very telling that you’re seeing an attack on Jews around every turn. It shows so much about your lack of character and bad faith approach to this situation.

      • mondonut
        March 20, 2013, 9:30 am

        talknic says: Is there a special course in hypocrisy and ignorance you had to attend? Or is it a result of there being no iodized salt in your diet.
        =====================================================
        Given your history I know how difficult it is to string together a few paragraphs without resorting to insults but perhaps you could explain how the Palestinians can arrive at an independent state with sovereignty and recognized borders without coming to an agreement with the Israelis.

      • mondonut
        March 20, 2013, 9:37 am

        Shingo says: According to what article of international law? BTW. Palestine already has agreements with over 100 countries.
        ==================================================
        And? Where is their sovereign and independent state? Why does it not already exist if they can make it happen without the Israelis?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:18 am

        you’re the one pushing the “agreement with israelis” fantasy. perhaps you be the one to explain how the israelis will ever agree to an independent palestinian state with sovereignty and recognized borders.

        an israeli leader who agrees to that would probably get assassinated, so they won’t do it. it’s a catch 22. they are not equal parties. don’t play games with us.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 1:39 pm

        Annie – – You appear to confirm no Israeli government would agree to an independent Palestine with an army. Yes, difficult to get Israel to end the occupation. To say the least.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 2:14 pm

        Annie – – Palestinian police sould be able to deal with the Jews in the settlements, to enforce the laws of Palestine.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 2:38 pm

        james, you appear to confirm israelis will never agree to any independent palestinian state with sovereignty and recognized borders.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 2:49 pm

        Annie – – No, I think an independent Palestine with defined borders can be achieved.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 3:20 pm

        And? Where is their sovereign and independent state? Why does it not already exist if they can make it happen without the Israelis?

        Their state has been recognized within the 4 June 1967 borders by the UN General Assembly and 132 UN member states.

        For example, in fulfillment of the prohibition against the acquisition of territory by war, The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 201, Reporters Note 3 explains that “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

        In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding the status of Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford said “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.”

        FYI, the US Federal Courts ruled that the United States Government had formally recognized the Mandated State of Palestine in the most favored nation clauses of its treaties of commerce in 1932. See the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Kletter v. Dulles (1950) link to dc.findacase.com

        Palestine quite obviously did not cease to exist simply because Israel occupied a part of its territory under the terms of a UN-sanctioned Armistice agreement. Learn to deal with it.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 3:47 pm

        with sovereignty james? you think israel will agree to an independent palestinian state with sovereignty and recognized borders?

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 4:25 pm

        Annie – – I would say with sovereignty. You would argue without sovereignty, if you define possession of sovereignty as existing only if a country has an army.

      • mondonut
        March 20, 2013, 4:27 pm

        Hostage says: Their state has been recognized within the 4 June 1967 borders by the UN General Assembly and 132 UN member states.
        ================================================
        None of which makes it a sovereign independent state. A status that Palestine has never enjoyed (despite your assertion) and still does not. It does not have borders, territory or sovereignty.

        And if you back up to the original point of this thread and try to stay on topic, they never will without coming to an agreement with Israel. Either through peace or violence.

        Read the comment below, even your Annie agrees.

      • mondonut
        March 20, 2013, 4:33 pm

        Annie Robbins says: you’re the one pushing the “agreement with israelis” fantasy.
        =============================================
        I am not sure if you are replying to me or not. But if so, the point of the thread is that the Palestinians REQUIRE an agreement to become a state, the Israelis do not. I thought that much would be unquestioningly obvious. I was wrong.

        As to the rest, the Israelis are likely to agree if the Palestinians were to modify their demands. But then, it would the Palestinians who would be assassinated.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 4:52 pm

        they never will without coming to an agreement with Israel. Either through peace or violence.

        Read the comment below, even your Annie agrees.

        you read wrong, i don’t think israel will ever agree to palestinian sovereignty. that doesn’t mean i don’t think a sovereign palestinian state will exist.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 5:04 pm

        i am not arguing without sovereignty, i am predicting without israel’s ‘agreement’. as i mentioned, i don’t think israeli politicians will ever agree to a palestinian state. because they think they deserve it all. it’s been decades, the ‘peace process’ is a charade. no palestinian state will come about like that ‘in negotiation’ with israel. notice how israel didn’t get an agreement from palestine to open up shop? not going to happen, it’s not israel’s decision to make, the land is not disputed. oslo is dead. the agreements will be between palestine and the international community, not israel.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 5:30 pm

        Those of us in the BDS movement believe that Israel will eventually agree if the proper pressure is brought to bear. Your statement implies that you think the BDS movement is pointless since Israel will ‘never’ agree to a sovereign Palestinian state. Correct?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 6:14 pm

        not correct, so tell me which companies are on the top of your boycott list.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 7:04 pm

        But if so, the point of the thread is that the Palestinians REQUIRE an agreement to become a state, the Israelis do not.

        I’ve pointed-out that Israel required and still requires the agreement of the United Nations.

        What pray tell, do suppose would prevent Palestine from joining the ICC as a member state and pursuing prosecution of the Israeli officials who approve illegal housing tenders for settlements or who serve in positions that are necessary to maintain the on-going conditions of Apartheid that prevail in every one of the existing Jewish-only settlements located on the territory of Palestine? I think the international community of states has signaled its readiness to cooperate with the Palestinians, since they announced that taking legal action in the Courts was one of the main reasons for the UN statehood bid in the first place.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 7:26 pm

        Annie – – Interesting point of view. I certainly agree Palestine should seek recognition by virtually all the countries on the planet.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 7:35 pm

        Yes, the reason Yassir Arafat did not state publicly forty years ago, that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel w/in its 1967 borders, was simply he knew he would be assassinated.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 7:56 pm

        None of which makes it a sovereign independent state.

        The problem with your tortured logic is that all States are considered to be juridically equal, with exactly the same rights and duties under customary international law.

        The International Court of Justice put the international community of States on notice that Israel is violating international law and its obligations under the UN Charter by interfering with the sovereignty and independence of the Palestinian people in their own territory.

        Israel cannot strike an agreement with the international community which will permit it to maintain that illegal situation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Israeli officials have understood that from the very beginning of the occupation:

        West Bank presented particularly difficult problems. Incorporation of West Bank into Israel, with its large Arab population, would completely transform Israel’s national existence and reason for being. An Israeli demographic expert had estimated that at present rate of population growth this would produce an Arab majority in Israel within 15 years. In any case it would cause a total reshaping of Israeli politics, as Arab votes were sought, and thus produce alterations in structure of Israel that they did not desire. Neither could Arabs be incorporated into Israel without granting them Israeli citizenship. This would not be permitted by international community nor would it be acceptable to Israeli people themselves.
        .
        Eban said they had also given thought to establishment of separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank. This also has serious drawbacks. Days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed. Creation of Palestinian state might simply increase irredentist desires. There would be yet another Arab state on Arab scene. In a year or two it would ask for UN membership, and it would be admitted. Such prospects did not look attractive.

        link to history.state.gov

        Read the comment below, even your Annie agrees.

        I don’t believe Annie said that Israel controls the legal status of the Palestinian territories or that its status can only be altered with Israel’s consent. I’ve pointed out on several occasions that the overwhelming majority of boundary disputes are resolved by international adjudication or arbitration, not through negotiation. See link to mondoweiss.net

        Israel and the US have proven themselves incapable of negotiating a settlement in line with the applicable international laws and the UN Charter.

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 8:07 am

        But if so, the point of the thread is that the Palestinians REQUIRE an agreement to become a state, the Israelis do not.

        And what, may I ask, makes you think that? The fact that Israel has a massive military and belligerently occupies Palestinian territory?

        Of course not. The Palestinians more certainly do not require an agreement to become a state, that is just he BS that Israel and the US have been arguing to avoid the issue being determined at the UN.

        After all, did any of the 139 states who have recognized Palestine ask Israel for permission?

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 8:09 am

        Yes, the reason Yassir Arafat did not state publicly forty years ago, that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel w/in its 1967 borders, was simply he knew he would be assassinated.

        That’s a hasbra talking point. Arafat did more than state in publicly, he put it in writing.

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 8:13 am

        None of which makes it a sovereign independent state.

        False. There is nothing that prevents Palestine being independent and sovereign. It just means that Israel is violating Palestine’s independence and sovereignty.

        And if you back up to the original point of this thread and try to stay on topic, they never will without coming to an agreement with Israel.

        There will never be an agreement with Israel because Israel is not interested in reaching such an agreement. This has been the status quo since Menachem Begin laid down this policy.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 11:46 am

        Annie: Ahava and Sodastream.

        So, why do you think the BDS movement is not pointless if you believe it will fail in its goal of pressuring Israel into implementing its principles?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 12:04 pm

        gm, i don’t believe the BDS movement is pointless and i don’t believe it will fail in its goal of eventual equality for palestinians. i just do not think it will come about by negotiations. as hostage said:

        the overwhelming majority of boundary disputes are resolved by international adjudication or arbitration, not through negotiation.

        boycotts divestment and sanctions will pressure israel into accepting international intervention. this is my prediction. of course, if i am wrong and israel makes an agreement with palestinians sans that intervention then i’ll be happy to eat my words. i just don’t think they will, or they would have by now.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 2:06 pm

        Shingo – – Are you claiming Yassir Arafat in writing, forty years ago, said the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders?

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 9:40 pm

        Are you claiming Yassir Arafat in writing, forty years ago, said the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders?

        Are you seriously claiming this is the first time this fact has come to your attention? And it was 30 years ago, not 40.

        LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:

        September 9, 1993
        Yitzhak Rabin

        Prime Minister of Israel

        Mr. Prime Minister,

        The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

        The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

        The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

        [Note that 242 and 228 explicitly cite the recognition of Israel within 1967 borders]

        The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

        The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

        In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

        Sincerely,
        Yasser Arafat

        Chairman

        The Palestine Liberation Organization

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      • Citizen
        March 22, 2013, 6:02 am

        @ mondonut

        Israel’s annexation of the east of the city has never been recognised by the international community. Most of the Arab residents there chose not to apply for Israeli citizenship as, like the whole world outside of Israel, they didn’t, and don’t recognize Israel’s self-extended land grab by Israel’s ’67 war either.
        Additionally, Israel is very busy withdrawing Arab residency there from Arabs living abroad, thereby reducing the Arab presence.

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:45 pm

        Negotiation or international intervention – so what? As long as BDS brings the proper pressure on Israel, that’s what counts.

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 9:02 pm

        Once upon a time no-one would have argued if you stated that there was no chance the ruling white minority in South Africa would ever accept the enfranchisement of the indigenous majority. Then the price of that refusal became too great. Eventually the same will happen to the Zionist state. Pressure and time can literally move mountains.

      • James Canning
        March 23, 2013, 7:35 pm

        Djinn – – I could see that “white rule” in South Africa was doomed, more than 50 years ago. Demographics.
        Israel would have to be compelled to annex all of the West Bank. Not likely to happen, in my view.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2013, 11:03 pm

        The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security….

        In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

        pff! then the demand was further amended to include: recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist as a jewish state!

        hogwash!

      • talknic
        March 24, 2013, 10:49 am

        James Canning Yassir Arafat tod his close aides forty years ago that the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders? This is a matter of history, and your knowledge of that history

        It’s a matter of knowing where Israel’s borders are. It is a matter of historical fact overlooked by some folk.

        Israel’s borders were and still are those it asked to be recognized by 64 years ago. No borders changed in ’67. No borders changed under the 1949 Armistice Agreements Israel signed.

        Israel has never legally annexed any territory to its Internationally recognized sovereign extent

        May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      • talknic
        March 24, 2013, 11:17 am

        mondonut “Given your history I know how difficult it is to string together a few paragraphs without resorting to insults”

        Put one up. Your statement was hypocritical and based in the usual learned ignorance one has come to expect of a dedicated propagandist for Israel. Your ability not to recognize it could be the effect of a diet deficiency.

        “but perhaps you could explain how the Palestinians can arrive at an independent state with sovereignty and recognized borders without coming to an agreement with the Israelis”

        By Israel simply adhering to the law, ending its 64 year occupation and for once withdrawing all its troops and illegal settlers out of non-Israeli territory and paying the Palestinians for 64 years of belligerence. Quite simple really

        Very verrrrry expensive and far more than Israel can afford without being sent bankrupt. But that’s Israel’s problem, it created its illegal facts on the ground. Deceived itself and its citizens

        It is Israel in breach of the law, not Palestine and the Palestinians have no legal obligation for forgo any of their rights even in negotiations.

      • James Canning
        March 24, 2013, 3:11 pm

        @Shingo – – Do we agree Arafat put into writing, for public release, 20 years ago, the position he had held since the early 1970s? That the Palestinians would have to accept Israel within “1967” borders.

      • James Canning
        March 24, 2013, 7:06 pm

        @talknic – – Yassir Arafat did not entertain notions of evicting Israel from areas occupied during 1948-49 war, when he said Israel would have to be accepted by the Palestinians. Green Line.

    • Hostage
      March 10, 2013, 1:14 pm

      Joseph Levine’s logic is of the sort that says Jews cannot exercise self-determination because Arab rights are going to be infringed.

      No, the UN plan required equal and proportional representation of the Jewish and Arab citizens of the new states – and no forced transfers or deportations. The UN Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32, dated 11 November 1947 noted the updated population figures supplied by the British mandatory government indicated that, from the outset, Arabs would constitute a majority of the population of the proposed “Jewish” state – 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. See pdf file page 42 of 69.

      We all know that the Jewish authorities unilaterally seized a great deal of additional territory that had been allocated to the new Arab State together with its population. So the Arab majority should have been much, much higher than the original figure.

      During the 20th Sitting of the first Knesset Ben Gurion explained that annexing the Triangle and Hebron would add 500,000 to 800,000 Arabs to the population of the State of Israel. He noted that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and that they would have to be given the vote. The Herut MKs replied that there were millions of Jews elsewhere in the world that would be willing to immigrate. Ben Gurion replied that the new Arab Knesset would adopt laws that would prevent them from coming. See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, pages 514-515 (pdf file page 94 of 186) link to jcpa.org

      The same thing would have happened in any event. If the original Arab majority had been represented in the Knesset, Ben Gurion wouldn’t have been Prime Minister and the Law of Return and Nationality would never have been proposed or adopted.

      • NormanF
        March 10, 2013, 4:52 pm

        When the Jews attained independence, their existence was no longer dependent on the grace or goodwill of others. The new Jewish State abolished the illegal 1939 British White Paper that forbade Jewish immigration and threw open the country’s gates for Jews to arrive. If the British had not imposed it in the first place in contravention of the Mandate’s explicit terms, a Jewish majority would have been attained in Palestine much sooner. The rest of your argument is red herring.

      • Sumud
        March 10, 2013, 10:13 pm

        When the Jews attained independence, their existence was no longer dependent on the grace or goodwill of others.

        More hogwash.

        Israel is entirely dependant on the US. The financial and military aid to a degree, but most important is the UN Security Council veto. When that is abolished Israel will have to pay the piper and it isn’t going to be pretty.

        I predict a voluntary mass exodus of jews from Israel.

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:18 am

        With abundant quantities of natural gas and shale oil, Israel is emerging as an energy superpower. This development will be Israel’s “Gold Rush” – for Jews facing anti-Semitism in Europe and a bleak future in America, the prospect of a better life in Israel will beckon them there like a magnet attracts iron fillings. And being an oil exporting superpower will give Israel a great deal of leverage around the globe. It will suck the oxygen out of the BDS movement. Its going to happen in the next few years.

      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 8:26 am

        So the British granted them independence did they? Or who actually gave them independence? Unilaterally declaring yourself into existence is hardly being given independence.

      • hophmi
        March 11, 2013, 10:03 am

        “Israel is entirely dependant on the US.”

        More hogwash. Many Israelis would forgo US aid at this point. Israel is a developed society.

        The Palestinians are entirely dependent on the international community.

        “The financial and military aid to a degree, but most important is the UN Security Council veto. ”

        And if the veto were abolished tomorrow, what would change? Do you think the industrialized world is lining up to invade the region’s only stable and democratic state? Do you think they’re lining up to boycott? Do you think an Arab army would last two seconds against the IDF? By all means, let them repeat the follies of 1948. How humiliating will the defeat be this time?

        “I predict a voluntary mass exodus of jews from Israel.”

        Keep predicting. It will not happen. I predict a mass exodus of Christians from Iraq. Oh wait. . .

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:02 pm

        The British withdrew from Palestine. The British did not grant “independence” to Israel.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:47 am

        With abundant quantities of natural gas and shale oil, Israel is emerging as an energy superpower

        Rubbish. The reserves will likely make Israel energy independent, but no major exporter. And with shale oil extraction becoming common place around the globe, Israel will likely reap little benefit.

        In fact, it’s not even clear if the oi, and gas is recoverable. Here in Australia, there is talk of potential deposits in South Australia that could rival Saudi Arabia.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 2:46 pm

        “The Palestinians are entirely dependent on the international community. ”

        Of course they are. They’re being preyed upon by the Israeli viper. Kill that snake and the Palestinians will be fine.

      • pjdude
        March 13, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Israel is so devolped that almost all oif its vaunted acomplishments are funded by foreign powers.

      • Ellen
        March 13, 2013, 6:39 pm

        Many Israelis would forgo US aid at this point. Then why is it that Israel continues to push for continued and increased aid from the USA?

        Fact is Israel is a mega recipient of largess from the US.

      • Ellen
        March 13, 2013, 6:44 pm

        Israel is emerging as an energy superpower. OmG regardless of the natgas finds, that is a bizzare staement. A Hasabaraignoranium talking point that only the most ignorant of energy resources could dare repeat.

      • tear-stained uzi
        March 14, 2013, 8:30 am

        Norm’s broader hasbaratic argument was gathering steam coming down the track, and I was following along raptly, when suddenly, a gasket blew:

        …[F]or Jews facing anti-Semitism in Europe and a bleak future in America, the prospect of a better life in Israel will beckon them there like a magnet attracts iron fillings.

        I’m telling you, Norm, you need to quit living recklessly and get yourself a good, Jewish dentist. Who wants to go through another Seder where everything tastes like rust? Get rid of those cheap old things and you can finally get that cranial MRI you so richly deserve. Modern amalgam fillings aren’t really that expensive anymore, and for only a few more shekels, my guy, Dr. Izzie, will even throw in a special Hasabaraignoranium coating, which studies show can impart an almost convincingly natural sincerity to your smile.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        March 19, 2013, 3:39 am

        hophmi says:
        March 11, 2013 at 10:03 am

        “More hogwash. Many Israelis would forgo US aid at this point. Israel is a developed society.”

        Israel is a great big filthy leech, which is precisely why “The Palestinians are entirely dependent on the international community.”

        hophmi says:
        March 11, 2013 at 10:03 am

        “And if the veto were abolished tomorrow, what would change? Do you think the industrialized world is lining up to invade the region’s only stable and democratic state? Do you think they’re lining up to boycott? Do you think an Arab army would last two seconds against the IDF?”

        Sure.

        hophmi says:
        March 11, 2013 at 10:03 am

        “By all means, let them repeat the follies of 1948. How humiliating will the defeat be this time?”

        Nah, the Israelis would probably lose on purpose, just so they could whine some more about how the world hates The Jews™, then demand the Isle of Manhattan as compensation for their hurt feelings.

        hophmi says:
        March 11, 2013 at 10:03 am

        “Keep predicting. It will not happen. I predict a mass exodus of Christians from Iraq. Oh wait. . .”

        It’s already happening puppy.

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 4:35 am

        @ NormanF

        “When the Jews attained independence, their existence was no longer dependent on the grace or goodwill ….. “ … or the territory of others. You do understand the word independent?

        “The new Jewish State abolished the illegal 1939 British White Paper that forbade Jewish immigration ..”

        A) Who says it was illegal and why?

        B) Did you bother to read the White Paper or are you just following the wholly holey olde Hasbara script for really really stupid people?

        It did not forbid Jewish immigration.

        “It has been urged that all further Jewish immigration into Palestine should be stopped forthwith. His Majesty’s Government cannot accept such a proposal. It would damage the whole of the financial and economic system of Palestine and thus effect adversely the interests of Arabs and Jews alike. Moreover, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, abruptly to stop further immigration would be unjust to the Jewish National Home. ” link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        C) Israel threw Israel’s gates open for Jewish immigration. Israel had and still has, no right to throw non-Israeli territory open for Jewish immigration. Thus far their are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis illegally living in non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to wp.me

        BTW your arguments pre 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) are irrelevant as of the moment the Declaration of independence came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ according to the Israeli Government a the time. link to trumanlibrary.org

      • talknic
        March 19, 2013, 4:46 am

        // “Israel is entirely dependant on the US.”//

        @ hophmi “More hogwash. Many Israelis would forgo US aid at this point. Israel is a developed society”

        Israel is entirely dependent on the US veto vote in the UNSC to save it from the consequences of its illegal facts on the ground, in contravention of International Law, the Charter and relevant conventions Israel is obliged to uphold ….. but hasn’t.

        Without the US veto vote in the UNSC, Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades as it attempted to pay billions of dollars of compensation to the Palestinians. It would be required to repatriate hundreds of thousands of Israelis back into Israeli territory, provide housing for them. More billions of dollars.

        ” if the veto were abolished tomorrow, what would change?”</em.

        See above…

      • Shingo
        March 19, 2013, 6:16 pm

        More hogwash. Many Israelis would forgo US aid at this point.

        According to what evidence? And why is it that the Israeli lobby is so fierce in ensuring the ongoing aid packages continue in spite of the fact they were supposed to end years ago?

        Israel is a developed society.

        Israel is an artificial and fragile society that could collapse and implode at any moment. It is entirely dependent on the US. As MJ Rosengerb said recently, Israelis know that without the US, they wouldn’t last a month.

        And if the veto were abolished tomorrow, what would change?

        Everything. Israel would be facing international sanctions, it’s economy would be a basked case and Israelis would be deserting the country.

      • MRW
        March 19, 2013, 8:55 pm

        The new Jewish State abolished the illegal 1939 British White Paper

        The illegal British White Paper? What orifice did you pull that malarkey from?

        If the British had not imposed it in the first place in contravention of the Mandate’s explicit terms

        The 1939 British White Paper was the Mandate’s terms.

      • Shingo
        March 19, 2013, 10:23 pm

        Great post MRW.

        BTW. Annie said you had some information on Edwin Black and his thesis being scrutinized or discredited. Can you fill me on the details?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 11:26 pm

        shingo, i don’t know anything definitive. but the things i heard about him started a few years before i visited mondoweiss. i would start here:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        btw, my instinct is that the changes (edits of the 2 transfer agreement editions) are in the footnotes. if you can make it to the australian national library i hear there’s a first edition there. he made a deal, turned over the docs,i think thousands of them, and was then off the hook.

      • MRW
        March 20, 2013, 2:03 am

        Correctamundo, my little annie. The extant copies of the first edition are getting trashed from libraries faster than you can say ‘mondoweiss’.

        The appearance of the first edition invoked a JDL contract on his head. He had to hide out for two years.

        he made a deal, turned over the docs,i think thousands of them, and was then off the hook

        And then found religion being an uber-Zio, finding anti-semites under every toilet seat, a career guarantee. The ADL and an editor were in charge of subsequent editions ever since. ‘Natch I have a few copies of the original, two of which I bought before the 1984 pub date from Scribner’s on Fifth Ave. The book buyer was verklempt that I even knew about it, until I told her I knew where he was hiding out.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 8:06 am

        When the Jews attained independence, their existence was no longer dependent on the grace or goodwill of others. . . . The rest of your argument is red herring.

        You’re the one who’s argument is a complete red herring. Israel still required the help of others to avoid becoming a UN trusteeship.

        Independence was irrelevant to the status of a mandate or trusteeship. The Covenant of the League of Nations had recognized the provisional independence of all the mandates from the very outset. The establishment of independent governments in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan did not result in unconditional recognition by the League or the UN, much less the immediate termination of their respective mandates.

        There were a number of other criteria, including acceptance of a minority rights treaty, that had to be fulfilled before the mandate regimes could be legally terminated. One of the other criteria for termination of a mandate regime was the requirement that all of the territory subject to the same mandate instrument be emancipated at the very same time. For example, Transjordan had been recognized as an independent government since at least 1928. But that did not effect the status of the Palestine mandate, which required the immediate establishment of self-governing institutions in any event.

        After Great Britain announced its plans for its independence in 1946, Transjordan applied for membership in the United Nations. It’s request was declined. The President of the Security Council and several other members complained that Transjordan was still part of a joint international mandate that had not yet been legally terminated. He noted that the United Nations would have to address the Question of Palestine as a whole. The subsequent attainment of independence by the State of Israel in a portion of western Palestine was just as irrelevant, unless all of the other necessary criteria were also satisfied in order to terminate the mandate regime. The ICJ advised in the Status of South West Africa case that a mandatory could not unilaterally terminate a mandate. You can read more about that and the necessary citations here: link to mondoweiss.net

        If the British had not imposed it in the first place in contravention of the Mandate’s explicit terms . . .

        That’s another red herring. Zionists seem to be completely unfamiliar with the explicit terms of the Mandate. They always end up making unsupportable and grandiose claims about its contents. The San Remo resolution granted the mandate to the British government, not the Jews. The San Remo resolution also put the British government in charge of drafting the terms of the mandate instrument and the job of interpreting and implementing their own Balfour Declaration (not the Jews).

        The Mandate that was finally approved by the Council of the League was full of qualified language. It only required the British to facilitate Jewish immigration, “under suitable conditions”. It also granted full powers (i.e. boundless discretion) to the British authorities to administer the mandate, not the Jews.

      • Citizen
        March 22, 2013, 6:38 am

        @ NormanF
        The Palestinians too own huge gas/oil fields off the Gazan shore; and British companies found them feasible to extract a decade ago, and were willing to contract with the Palestinians. But Israel has tied up this Palestinian opportunity to get off the EU/US dole, basically because the Palestinians wouldn’t accept the Israeli “such a deal!” deal to buy all the Palestinian product at a very deep discount from market value. “In short, take our shitty deal, or no deal at all.” link to al-shabaka.org

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 10, 2013, 1:18 pm

      Nonsense, Norman. Is there anywhere else in the world that and that’s no religious group has, like the Jews and Israel, conspired to take over some other people’s land and claim it as their exclusive own? No. Only here.

      The nonsensical argument from “this looks like an ancient anti-Semitic trope” is nonsense. You should learn to think about things objectively and rationally and stop pretending that everyone who objects to anything that is done by this state is doing so because they are anti-Semitic. That is perhaps the lamest, weakest argument there is.

    • Fritz
      March 10, 2013, 1:19 pm

      “It should be noted nearly every country is a homeland for a particular ethnic people.” That’s simply false, nearly no country is without historical minorities and in the many cases of the post-colonial world (esp. Africa, Asia) You have countries with about 200 languages and ethnic groups. Even in Europe neither France nor the UK nor Finland nor Sweden and also neither Syria, Turkey or Egypt are homogenous and had to learn to give equal rights to all its citizens. you should rethink Your colonial perspective on countries, ethnicities, and minorities.

      • James Canning
        March 10, 2013, 3:23 pm

        @Fritz – – Perhaps one would note here that some of the Kurds living in Turkey do no want equal rights with all Turks.

    • American
      March 10, 2013, 1:28 pm

      ”No one wants to live as a minority in someone else’s land –”’..Norman F

      Well evidently they do……..the 5 million Jews that live in the US are one of our smallest minorities and I haven’t seen them flocking to Israel to live in the Jewish majority. Hispanics and Asians are minorities and they keep on coming to the anglo majority US so it must not bother them either.

      BTW…Where do you live Norman?

      • James Canning
        March 10, 2013, 3:25 pm

        @American – – Egyptian Coptic Christians were happy enough to remain in Egypt, as a minority, ofr many many centuries. Ditto the Christians in Iraq (prior to illegal and idiotic US invasion in 2003).

      • hophmi
        March 10, 2013, 6:48 pm

        Yes, so wonderfully are the Copts treated, and the Christians in Iraq, too, now that the people have the vote.

      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 8:29 am

        @hophmi: I would look closer to home at the persecution of Christians before you judge others for your propaganda purposes if I were you.

      • hophmi
        March 11, 2013, 9:59 am

        Blake: I would ask a Christian in Iraq and Egypt whether he enjoys when Western activists cover up their persecution because it’s inconvenient for their pro-Palestinian activism.

      • Blake
        March 12, 2013, 5:27 pm

        @ hophmi: I would ask you how you have a mandate to speak for them. I would also remind you that Iraq and Egypt have not ethnically cleansed any Christians out nor do any of them await a Right of Return to their homes and homeland. You may also be interested to learn that thousands of Iraqi Muslims are converting to Christianity.

        As for the Copts I subscribe to the CYC channel on YT and they sure do not portray a picture you have dreamed up in your propaganda pieces.

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 3:36 pm

        Blake – – Why did one million Iraqi Chritains flee the country, during the vicious civil war (set off by idiotic American invasion)?

      • sardelapasti
        March 13, 2013, 5:38 pm

        Canning re Xians fleeing Iraq
        Interesting. That, in fact, was the main first result of the 1st Crusade as it has been that of this last one. The more it changes, the more it stays the same.
        But “ethnic cleansing” it isn’t.

      • MHughes976
        March 13, 2013, 7:04 pm

        Were the answer to this question to be ‘Because of persecution by their Muslim compatriots, which we cannot expect, for the foreseeable future, to cease’ what conclusions would we draw? That a new Christian State should be carved out in the ME or elsewhere? This general idea would revive the Westphalia ‘cuius regio eius religio’ principle. I would not like to see this, though I can see that if I were a ME Christian I might think it the only answer to a desperate problem. It would be the end of commitment to the idea of individual ‘human rights’ as fundamental, the idea which I think is basic to Professor Levine’s argument. I also think the ‘cuius regio’ principle runs into many paradoxes.

      • Antidote
        March 15, 2013, 11:19 pm

        “would revive the Westphalia ‘cuius regio eius religio’ principle. I would not like to see this”

        the ‘crer’ principle dates back to the Peace of Augsburg (1555), I think, not the Peace of Westphalia (1648). And yes, there was not much peace in Europe during the century between.

        That principle also seems to be the model for the equally disastrous idea of the homogenous ethnic nation state of the 19th/20th c, and a disastrous 30yrs+ war (WW i and II)

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 2:36 pm

        “CRER” formula was used at Westphalia.

        Did First World War have much to do with religion? I suppose fanatical Serb nationalists did object to Roman Catholic establishments in Vienna and Budapest.

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 7:51 pm

        Sardelapasti – – Illegal US invasion of Iraq was a crusade?

      • sardelapasti
        March 16, 2013, 11:08 pm

        Canning – “Illegal US invasion of Iraq was a crusade?”

        Certainly! As from the horse’s mouth. Or rather the ass’ mouth. Didn’t you hear him bray? Didn’t you talk to the stupids who were going or sending others?
        As for who ordered the whole thing, of course it’s different (for the 4th it was the Venitian banks in league with the Pope.)

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:39 pm

        Sard – – The Pope was appalled by the sacking of the greatest Christian city in Europe, by the Crusaders in 1204-05. (Fourth Crusade)
        The Crusaders helped to bring into being the Ottoman Empire.
        Greed, stupidity, etc virtually beyond belief.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:41 pm

        Sard – – Illegal and idiotic US invasion of Iraq was made possible by epic ignorance and stupidity on the part of Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, this fact tends to be swept under the rug.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        March 19, 2013, 3:53 am

        hophmi says:
        March 11, 2013 at 9:59 am

        Blake: I would ask a Christian in Iraq and Egypt whether he enjoys when Western activists cover up their persecution because it’s inconvenient for their pro-Palestinian activism.

        I would much rather ask a Jew in NY State whether he enjoys when scummy zionist shills cover up Palestinian persecution because it’s convenient for the pro-Zionist land grab?

      • Citizen
        March 22, 2013, 6:50 am

        Bush Jr called it a crusade in public. The PNAC boys were glad to humor him.

      • NormanF
        March 10, 2013, 4:59 pm

        There are lots of Disasporas.

        A time is coming though when the majority, if not all of the world’s Jews will eventually live in Israel.

      • Cliff
        March 11, 2013, 3:21 pm

        hold your breath until it happens normy

      • James Canning
        March 22, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Extremely unlikely, Norman.

      • MRW
        March 10, 2013, 6:28 pm

        American,

        ”No one wants to live as a minority in someone else’s land –”’..Norman F

        Well evidently they do.

        .
        And not only that, as you list, by definition there is always a minority in any country that by definition deems one group a majority. How can it be otherwise?

        This is just another gloss on exceptionalism or chosen-ness. Another example of categorical thinking: Assimilation Bad/[our] Minority Good, which forms the basis, and subsequent excuse, for the symbolic action taken to maintain it.

    • Light
      March 10, 2013, 1:46 pm

      Israel has no more right to exist as democratic ethnocracy than the American south had a right to exist as a white only democracy. Governments derive their rights from the consent of the governed. When 50% of the people under the rule of the Israeli government lack equal rights, the government loses it legitimacy.

      • NormanF
        March 10, 2013, 5:01 pm

        Neither does the Arab World that deny their minorities equal rights. But you don’t make an argument against the racist discrimination that takes place there.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 10, 2013, 9:53 pm

        “Neither does the Arab World that deny their minorities equal rights.”
        “Arab world” is a bullshit term here. You have to talk of individual countries. In Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, minorities have equal constitutional rights..

      • Cliff
        March 10, 2013, 11:20 pm

        No Mondoweiss regular, thus including light, has ever justified discrimination in the Arab countries surrounding Israel.

        No Mondweiss regular has justified the ‘right to exist’ of these un-democratic States.

        It’s only extremist Jewish nationalist like you who defend racism, bigotry, ethnocentrism and discrimination. It’s only extremists like you who defend colonialism, occupation and apartheid.

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:23 am

        Israel is the opposite of colonialism, occupation and apartheid.

        Its one of the least racist, bigoted and ethnocentric societies in the world. It has a progressive democracy that has free elections, free markets, equal rights for women, religious freedom and individual opportunity for every person living in the country.

        I defend Israel because unlike its benighted neighbors, it reflects Western liberal values in its daily life. And these need no defense anywhere in the world.

      • seafoid
        March 11, 2013, 10:15 am

        Its one of the least racist, bigoted and ethnocentric societies in the world

        link to youtube.com
        link to youtube.com
        link to youtube.com
        link to tabletmag.com

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 10:53 am

        “Israel is the opposite of colonialism, occupation and apartheid.”

        This is a joke, right?

        “Its one of the least racist, bigoted and ethnocentric societies in the world.”

        LMAO. Israelis soccer hooligans walked out the stands in protest when their own team’s player scored a goal, because he was Muslim. Not even an Arab, but a Chechin. That’s racist, bigoted and ethnocentric.

        You are clearly delusional. You should seek help.

      • Cliff
        March 11, 2013, 3:23 pm

        israel is a racist, apartheid State

        if i wana know what the minorities endure in Israel, i ask them

        i ask the arab minority

        and they do not agree with what some Zionist fascist on the internet says

        you are doing PR

        they are speaking the truth

        Israel is a racist, bigoted, colonial-settler State that continues to destroy the remnants of the indigenous population’s society it usurped in 48′

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:49 am

        Israel is the opposite of colonialism, occupation and apartheid.

        No, the word you are looking for is worse not opposite. It is one of the most racist, bigoted and ethnocentric societies in the world. It is only progressive for Jews.

      • Philip Weiss
        March 10, 2013, 8:36 pm

        Such a simple and important way of phrasing it; thanks light

      • Light
        March 10, 2013, 11:12 pm

        Thanks. I may have plagiarized Thomas Jefferson. After writing it I recalled a very similar line from the Declaration of Independence.

    • traintosiberia
      March 10, 2013, 1:50 pm

      It’s time to decipher the loaded jargon like “self determination” and “right to exist”
      Does US Christian or White or ethnics of English-German heritage lose self determination by allowing the same rights to those not included in its definition that it enjoys or claims for itself? Unless we allow the definition to include the right to attack neighbors,spy on ally,interfere in the politics of other nations,and ignore the international laws ,we seem to be nothing but bunch of antisemitic breed out to deny Israel its “fundamental” rights of interfering into other people business as it sees fit.
      Did refusing of voting rights to people of color or of Peurto Rico or Guam constitute an open infringement of fundamental rights promoted by a democracy? Could US have been accused of neglecting its professed goals if it decided not to allow election n Iraq and of dereliction of duty if it did not allow Iraq to choose the party platform or candidate or decide not to recognize the election outcome?

    • traintosiberia
      March 10, 2013, 2:00 pm

      Arab defend their behaviors without subverting that of US.Neither they got paid if they ever tried. Some of the proponents of secular positions( Iraq of 1950s and Iran of 1950s) have been undermined just as was Arafat by US/Israel . Now go and defend the behaviors of Israel without ensnaring US.

    • James Canning
      March 10, 2013, 2:50 pm

      NormanF – – Enlgand has absorbed various groups of immigrants, time and time again over the centuries. These immigrants became thoroughly “English”. Is this a good thing, in your view?

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:26 am

        Israel is as Jewish as England is English and America is American. In my view its a good thing we live in a multicultural world in which every people on earth can make a unique contribution to the betterment of mankind.

      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 8:33 am

        You speak as if the people you uprooted and dispossessed who languish in refugee camps don’t even exist. It’s really repulsive behavior and you do not impress any one with a soul.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 10:04 am

        “Israel is as Jewish as England is English and America is American.”

        False. Israeli is as ISRAELI as America is American and 20% (dejure) and 50% (de facto) Israelis are non-Jews.

      • eljay
        March 11, 2013, 10:40 am

        >> Israel is as Jewish as England is English and America is American.

        Since England is English and America is American, Israel should be Israeli, not supremacist “Jewish State”.

        >> In my view its a good thing we live in a multicultural world …

        …as long as that multi-cultural world doesn’t make its way into supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • MRW
        March 12, 2013, 8:03 am

        Israel is as Jewish as England is English and America is American.

        A reminder is in order . . . .

        From The British White Paper of 1939
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        [T]he Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

        Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE.”

        But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 8:58 am

        mrw, and for anyone else who’s interested. there’s an over 200 comment thread going on over at reddit and this crowd seriously knows very little about the specifics. the hasbrats are ruling the roost and taking it in all wild kinda places. i rec going over there and setting them straight!

        link to reddit.com

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 2:04 pm

        Great post, MRW! Bravo.

      • Citizen
        March 13, 2013, 1:45 pm

        @ Annie: Done.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 2:38 pm

        good to hear! i’ll have to go see if i can find you. ;)

      • Citizen
        March 22, 2013, 7:07 am

        Israel is as Jewish as America is American?
        In America there is a constitutionally protected separation of religion and state. In America all citizens have equal rights under law. In Israel neither is true. Israel has over 50 laws that discriminate against its Arab citizens. And more are coming from the knesset. Plus Israel controls the daily life of natives in the OT under Israeli law, which means those natives have no rights.

    • seafoid
      March 10, 2013, 2:53 pm

      I admire the honesty of the settlers . Self determination on palestinian land. Nonsense .

    • James Canning
      March 10, 2013, 3:28 pm

      Are “Arabs” an “ethnic group”? Are they a “religious group”? What about the Palestinians who do not regard themselves as “Arabs”? And who are not Muslims.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 10, 2013, 8:51 pm

      Thou shall not self-determine on someone Else’s land. Thou shall not self-determine on someone Else’s land. Thou shall not self-determine on someone Else’s land. Thou shall not self-determine on someone Else’s land.
      Enter this in your thick skull.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 11, 2013, 2:21 am

      When your welfare is my nightmare I don’t call it self-determination. I call it a crime against my person. But I don’t expect an ethnocentric, racist right-wing Israeli to grasp this basic concept.

    • SQ Debris
      March 14, 2013, 2:47 am

      Oh contraire. The indigenous population does not constitute a “religious group.” It is constituted of Christians, Moslems, Jews, and anarchic atheists. The Antarctic is the answer. No pre-existing cultural groups. The perfect answer, sans Mediterranean beaches, for self determination of these alleged JewISH humans. Go ahead, buy parkas. Self determine at the expense of no other human cultural expression sounds like a perfect prescription. How many more weeks will Jew’s ( JewISH ain’t in it) majority continue in the areas under Israeli hegemony? The argument is a deformed excuse for human concern.

  5. Citizen
    March 10, 2013, 11:38 am

    I wouldn’t be stunned at all by how Americans, your and old, and middle-aged, sign on.
    Our long de facto policy in the Middle East assumes America will not sign on to perpetual US/Israeli exploitation of the Arab Street and Middle East oil via taxpayer funding of Israel, and support of despotic Arab regimes wedded, also, like Israel, to dependency on US diplomatically, and in the case of Israel, also financially–that is, only so long as the US Fourth Estate stays put as a propaganda arm of the US and Israeli Governments on all things Israel. This reality underscores the importance of Levine’s piece in the NYT, which I have not read yet, but Phil Weiss has shown a piece of today, here on MW.

    The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but inevitably. Neither Israel, nor America is on the moral side of history. The Arab Spring, in the long run, will not be bought off, nor intimidated sufficiently, not even by Big international Banking. The shortest route to both America’s and Israel’s demise is being funded and supported by the 1% elite beneficiaries in both countries.

    • dbroncos
      March 10, 2013, 1:05 pm

      In his speech to the AIPAC conference Joe Biden mentioned the “frightening” trend towards deligitimizing Israel. He said it’s the biggest challenge to Israel’s supporters that he’s seen in the 40 years he’s been paying attention. Whether he intended it to be or not, this observation was the only serious and sober critique of Israel and its supporters that he offered to the AIPAC crowd. The rumblings of opposition to Zionism are now reaching the tired old ears of the old guard in DC.

      • James Canning
        March 10, 2013, 2:43 pm

        dbroncos – – It would have been helpful if Biden had noted that unwise decisions taken by Israel have contributed to the situation he observes.

      • dbroncos
        March 10, 2013, 5:24 pm

        @James Canning

        Yes, I agree but I don’t think Biden had any intention of criticizing Israel. I read Biden’s commentary on deligimization to be a call to action, i.e. “Deligimization is happening, it’s dangerous and we need to combat it.” He said nothing that indicated to me that he was offering up that commentary as a criticism. However, the criticsm was there in a “hand writing on the wall” sort of way.

      • Citizen
        March 13, 2013, 2:00 pm

        @ dbroncos
        For sure, Beiden was beating the drums to stop “delegitimizing” Israel, as he knows that’s code for muzzling any criticism of Israel and US enmeshment with it’s rogue conduct. He’s giving the Israel Firster audience red meat–it cements his good life style career and prepares any leftover ambition he may have to be POTUS. He also was bragging that only the US voted against the Palestinian bid for semi-state status at the UN. Beiden personifies the worst example of an unscrupulous Irish politician solely looking to advance his career and income. I can say that–I am 62.5% Irish.

  6. HarryLaw
    March 10, 2013, 12:14 pm

    To claim Israel as “The Jewish state” is extremely problematical, on the one hand it could have innocent meanings in the sense that a substantial majority of its population are in fact Jewish and that for the foreseeable future and through natural demographic trends it will remain so, but more importantly the non Jewish minority would be treated as equal citizens with all the rights of the majority. In this case a “Jewish state” must have negative consequences especially for any non Jewish minority, since that minority is deemed to be a threat to that states very existence, therefore legal steps, which have been taken by “the Jewish state” in its many laws discriminating against the minority are undemocratic and inherently racist and are in fact designed to be so. There are many in the US and Israel who would be quite happy with that state of affairs, the rest of the world would not.

  7. Darcha
    March 10, 2013, 12:23 pm

    Saw Ahmed Tibi on France24 the other night. His answer to ‘Jewish and democratic’ was ‘Democratic for Jews and Jewish for Arabs’. He also rejected 1SS? or 2SS? by saying that what we have is a ‘one-state SITUATION’. Those two short sentences sum up the entire argument: a Jewish state where half the population isn’t Jewish is morally indefensible. They’re nice, short, pithy. I know that I’m going to start using them.

    Also, I saw this rebroadcast on AJE: link to aljazeera.com
    It’s the ultimate Zionist nightmare of a room full of Palestinians talking!

  8. mondonut
    March 10, 2013, 12:49 pm

    Our site keeps urging a mainstream conversation about Zionism. That’s the endpoint of our work, questioning that almost-religiously-held belief.

    Sorry Phil, this is simply not true. A “conversation” is just the starting point of both this site and its primary contributors.

    The endpoint is to realize the already drawn conclusion that Zionism and a Jewish state must end, that the Palestinians be granted a non-existent right of return, that there is a single state from the river to sea and that the Jewish people become a minority within whatever emerges from that process.

    • James Canning
      March 10, 2013, 2:41 pm

      @mondonut – – Some of us see that if the Palestinians agree to accept 22% of what was Palestine in 1946, as their own country. perhaps this resolution of the dispute has serious merit.

      • sardelapasti
        March 10, 2013, 5:01 pm

        Canning – Exactly, “some of” you are perpetrating Zionist propaganda by hammering, day in day out, that Palestinian rights, which are not yours to make over to anyone, have already been given away.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 11, 2013, 2:27 am

        “Some of us see that if the Palestinians agree to accept 22% of what was Palestine in 1946″
        Without a right of return to the land where they were kicked out from? I strongly doubt it.

      • mondonut
        March 11, 2013, 12:59 pm

        thankgodimatheist says:“Some of us see that if the Palestinians agree to accept 22% of what was Palestine in 1946″

        Without a right of return to the land where they were kicked out from? I strongly doubt it.
        =======================================
        exactly.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:29 pm

        @mondonut – – I think your conviction Palestinianswill not accept any deal that precludes their “return” to Israel proper (that is, within the Green Line), is misplaced.

      • mondonut
        March 12, 2013, 12:31 pm

        James Canning says:@mondonut – – I think your conviction Palestinianswill not accept any deal that precludes their “return” to Israel proper (that is, within the Green Line), is misplaced.
        =====================================
        All evidence to the contrary. All evidence.

    • NormanF
      March 10, 2013, 5:05 pm

      A Jewish minority would not survive. But thanks for making clear why you’re really opposed to a Jewish State. Its not equality, freedom and human rights that animate you and your ilk; its hatred of the Jews and their existence in the form of a national collectivity. Anti-Zionism is simply more or less, a politically correct species of anti-Semitism.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 6:45 pm

        oh jeez, another hater humper. can’t you guys update your talking pts.

      • hophmi
        March 10, 2013, 6:50 pm

        These aren’t talking points. This is a pretty good prediction of what will happen given the way minorities are treated in the region.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 10, 2013, 7:09 pm

        Whatever it takes to cover up the way ISreal treats its own minorities from Palestinians to black Hebrews and every other goyim in between, eh? My guess is that AIPAC is paying you by the post and you think you stroke the mother load here, eh, hophmi?

      • Hostage
        March 10, 2013, 7:11 pm

        A Jewish minority would not survive. . . . This is a pretty good prediction of what will happen given the way minorities are treated in the region.

        They certainly did before the Zionists got involved. We can all name several minority communities, including the Jews, Druse, and Christians that have survived for thousands of years in the region.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 10, 2013, 8:11 pm

        “This is a pretty good prediction of what will happen given the way minorities are treated in the region.”
        If by any chance your “pretty good prediction” becomes reality it would have had nothing to do with becoming simply a minority in the region. It would only be due to the fact that for over 64 years your folk have behaved in the most atrocious way imaginable, inflicting on them unspeakable suffering. No other minority have conducted itself in such a way. And if you take the example of the right-wing Christian Lebanese, they have never attempted to take over the whole of Lebanon. You missed an important difference.

      • gamal
        March 10, 2013, 8:14 pm

        “given the way minorities are treated in the region”

        you must have a degree in AHistory, but how did these “Minorities” arise in the say last 1500 years, if they would now be unable to survive, its a diploma in willful obtuseness, coupled with the typical fascistic histrionics and self serving emotionalism, suddenly its about minorities, oddly its also about the sacrosanct rights of majorities when looked at from another perspective, its just the most shameless opportunism, but then Fascism is inherently an opportunistic ideology, re-framing its positions as need be. the one constant is generation of an “other” whose hostility and imminent assault justifies any and every act directed against them.

      • hophmi
        March 11, 2013, 10:12 am

        “Whatever it takes to cover up the way ISreal treats its own minorities from Palestinians to black Hebrews and every other goyim in between, eh? My guess is that AIPAC is paying you by the post and you think you stroke the mother load here, eh, hophmi?”

        Again, go be a Christian in Egypt or Iraq and get back to me.

        “They certainly did before the Zionists got involved. We can all name several minority communities, including the Jews, Druse, and Christians that have survived for thousands of years in the region.”

        That’s nonsense. Pure historical nonsense. Jews in the Middle East were long second-class citizens at best, and they were a tiny minority in the Holy Land. Survival and good treatment are not the same thing. Judaism survives in Europe today. Would you say Jews have been treated well there over time?

      • MK_Ultra
        March 10, 2013, 7:11 pm

        Always the victim, eh, Norm?

      • tree
        March 10, 2013, 7:17 pm

        A Jewish minority would not survive.

        Its rather amusing, in a sick sort of way, how history can be distorted and forgotten by Zionists when it suits their purposes.

        Jews were a small minority in Palestine when Zionism first began, and despite the leading Zionists making it quite clear that they intended to set up a State that favored Jews over all others, Jews remained a minority in Palestine right up until the Zionist forces, and then the Zionist State of Israel, ethnically cleansed three quarters of a million Palestinians. Jews managed to survive all those years as a minority living as equals to (or sometimes better than) their fellow residents of Palestine. But now we are supposed to believe that Jews couldn’t possibly become a minority again and still survive. I call bullshit. Scare tactic bullshit.

        And you have it backwards. Zionism is a heretofore politically correct form of racism. Slowly that political correctness is being seen for the lie it truly is.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 10, 2013, 7:56 pm

        “A Jewish minority would not survive.”
        Oh, shut up! They survived for centuries, no problem until you brought your racist asses in order to take over the whole country. And now you whine that they may hold no tender feelings towards repugnant ethnocentric racist colonisers.

      • Inanna
        March 10, 2013, 8:45 pm

        Why wouldn’t it survive? It’s because you think that after decades of treating Palestinians like they’re second-class and worse, you think they will treat you the same way. That’s just your guilty conscience speaking, and you are just projecting that onto Palestinians.

      • hophmi
        March 11, 2013, 10:19 am

        “Why wouldn’t it survive?”

        Gee, I don’t know. The history of combining warring ethnicities in the same state has been SUCH a success in the past. African states are such marvels of good governance and stability. Look at the former Yugoslavia – so wonderful.

      • goldmarx
        March 11, 2013, 11:29 am

        Actually, Ianna, Jews were dhimmis – second class citizens – in much of the Arab world before Zionism existed. In Palestine, for example, nearly 70 Jews in Hebron were massacred in 1929 in a porgrom spurred by the Mufti. And these Jews were Orthodox and anti-Zionist.

        The fear of returning to Jewish minority-status in Palestine is that that situation will recur.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 12:40 pm

        and the killing of those 70 Jews in Hebron in 1929 have been used to justify untold crimes against palestinians ever since. if i had a dollar for every time this was ever so benignly (not) inserted into a thread i could buy myself the london bridge! and you’ve got the mufti thrown in for good measure. no mention of the zionist congress that took place just days before. when i have time i will google some little factoids surrounding those circumstances that shed a wholly different light on that massacre.

      • goldmarx
        March 11, 2013, 1:06 pm

        Well, I can’t wait. Trostskyists like Nathan Weinstock abandoned their anti-Zionism when they learned of what happened inHebron. And I have never heard of any “Hasbara operative” stress that the Jews killed there were anti-Zionists who would have been willing to work with Palestinians against the Zionist movement.

      • tree
        March 11, 2013, 1:57 pm

        Goldmarx, you are wrong on your history. Zionism in Palestine was already passed the Fourth Aliyah stage when the Hebron Massacre occurred. Zionism existed well before that, and Zionist “pioneers”, as they were called, had been entering Palestine for decades, buying up land, placing restrictive covenants that only allowed Jews to own or work the land, and evicting Palestinian tenant farmers who had been there for decades and in some cases centuries, with legal protection as such under Ottoman law.

        The Hebron Massacre was sparked by ethnic riots that erupted in Jerusalem after Zionist rioters attempted to claim ownership of the Western Wall . The poor victims of the Hebron Massacre were mostly Ashkenazim and mostly Zionists.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • goldmarx
        March 11, 2013, 3:39 pm

        Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. The Jewish residents of Hebron were Orthodox and in those days, the Orthodox were vrtually all opposed to Zionism. The residents were not Zionist settlers but had lived there for quite some time. Before the Mufti stirred things up by claiming that “the Jews” tried to seize the Western Wall, the Hebron Jews managed to coexist with the Arabs there – many were customers of their small businesses, for example.

        Nathan Weinstock is no fool. His writings against Zionism were well argued and documented (a hallmark of Trotskyists, by the way). He was told about Hebron by his grand-daughter, not an Israeli official or diplomat.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 4:47 pm

        “The residents were not Zionist settlers but had lived there for quite some time. Before the Mufti stirred things up by claiming that ‘the Jews’ tried to seize the Western Wall, the Hebron Jews managed to coexist with the Arabs there – many were customers of their small businesses, for example.”

        Which only goes to show that the zionists were responsible for this death. Had they not, in fact, been attempting to steal all of this land, and the wall, this unfortunate event would never have happened. While certainly any responsible party has to take his blame, be he Arab or Jew, the reality is that the zionist invasion of Palestine was the proximate cause of all of these deaths.

      • Hostage
        March 11, 2013, 5:20 pm

        Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. The Jewish residents of Hebron were Orthodox and in those days, the Orthodox were vrtually all opposed to Zionism

        Oh please, this is a story that gets better every time one of the Hasbara fellows re-tells it. It’s a fact that Hanagah fighters contacted the head of the local branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Zionist Organization. They offered Eliezer Dan Slonim military weapons and assistance because of the threat of impending violence after their demonstration at the Western Wall. He ask them to take their guns and leave Hebron because their presence had become a source of unrest among the Arab inhabitants. Slonim was the only Jew who served on the local Hebron council, and he was a Zionist. The worst of the atrocities happened to the people who sought protection in his home. See Jerold S. Auerbach, Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel, page 67 et seq.

      • Light
        March 11, 2013, 7:09 pm

        How about an eyewitness account from someone who lived through it?

        link to nkusa.org

      • Inanna
        March 11, 2013, 11:05 pm

        Spare me the dhimmi bullshit goldmarx. I’m an Arab Christian, so I know all about the dhimmi status – it wasn’t something that was exclusive to Jews. And they got rid of it in the 1840s. But I love how the only people who bring up the dhimmi stuff is usually right-wing Jews who like to pretend that they are victims. As for that 1929 in Hebron, don’t forget to mention the context that it occurred in and the fact that many Jews were saved by their non-Jewish neighbours. Using your fears as a justification to continue to oppress and brutalize is a stupid thing to do. Because you will just create the situation that you fear by your actions. You have a choice, you either live in equality with Palestinians or your continue brutalizing them. Because unless you kill or ‘transfer’ them, they’re not going away.

      • goldmarx
        March 13, 2013, 8:25 am

        The killers in Hebron never attempted to distinguish between Zionist Jews and non-Zionist Jews, nor did the Mufti say to go after the ‘Zionists’ – only the Jews. Now, perhaps if the mob and its leaders had been clever enough to make the distinction, then you could make that case.

      • goldmarx
        March 13, 2013, 8:36 am

        Where did I claim that ‘dhimmi’ status was exclusive to Jews?

        Yes, there were Palestinians who saved their Jewish neighbors. But what is interesting is that they were supporters, or part of, the Nashashibi clan that, while anti-Zionist, was non-violent and sought to make a deal with the Zionist leadership. The Mufti who inspired the Hebron Massacre was from the al-Husseini clan, the chief rival of the Nashashibis, who learned from the Nazis that scapegoating Jews was the best way to achieve power. And that was even before he sat out the remainder of World War II in Berlin, beginning in 1941.

        I am not recounting this episode of pre-state history to oppress anybody. I support the BDS movement, but unlike you, I respect the legitimate fears of the Jews who live in Israel (as opposed to the illegitimate ones) in regard to a return to minority status.

      • goldmarx
        March 13, 2013, 8:45 am

        After “their” demonstration at the Western Wall? The demonstration was a Betar event, not Haganah, which was affiliated with Labor.

        Yes, Slonim was the odd duck out in Hebron (which is why I added the qualifier ‘virtually’), but how does what you posted refutee what I have said?
        The Mufti was still the main force behind the massacre.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 11:40 am

        The Mufti who inspired the Hebron Massacre ….. who learned from the Nazis that scapegoating Jews was the best way to achieve power.

        what’s your source on this?

      • goldmarx
        March 13, 2013, 1:13 pm

        Several, in fact. One is “Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine” (Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cuppers, Krista Smith) and Edwin Black’s “The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust.”

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 2:32 pm

        sounds like islamophobia run wild. 2010 eh, yeah, there’s been a real push lay the blame on the mufti in the last decade. smells like revisionist history to me. i wonder if these ‘historians’ even read arabic. i’m always suspicious when ‘new documents’ just happen to appear to ‘confirm’ the new meme. and edwin black’s been discredited since he did and about face after his wrists were slapped.

      • tree
        March 13, 2013, 4:22 pm

        The Mufti who inspired the Hebron Massacre was from the al-Husseini clan, the chief rival of the Nashashibis, who learned from the Nazis that scapegoating Jews was the best way to achieve power.

        This has got to be one of the most outrageously ahistorical comments I’ve seen here in a long time. No doubt you think that al-Husseini gained this knowledge by getting in his time machine and fast forwarding to the 1930’s. Here’s where Hitler and Nazi party were in the quest to achieve power in August of 1929, when the Hebron Massacre occurred:

        In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag. The highest provincial gain was again in Bavaria (5.11%), though in three areas the NSDAP failed to gain even 1% of the vote. Overall the NSDAP gained 2.63% (810,127) of the vote. Partially due to the poor results, Hitler decided that Germans needed to know more about his goals. Despite being discouraged by his publisher, he wrote a second book that was discovered and released posthumously as Zweites Buch. At this time the SA began a period of deliberate antagonism to the Rotfront by marching into Communist strongholds and starting violent altercations.

        At the end of 1928, party membership was recorded at 130,000. In March 1929, Erich Ludendorff represented the Nazi Party in the Presidential elections. He gained 280,000 votes (1.1%), and was the only candidate to poll fewer than a million votes. The battles on the streets grew increasingly violent. After the Rotfront interrupted a speech by Hitler, the SA marched into the streets of Nuremberg and killed two bystanders. In a tit-for-tat action, the SA stormed a Rotfront meeting on August 25 and days later the Berlin headquarters of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) itself. In September Goebbels led his men into Neukölln, a KPD stronghold, and the two warring parties exchanged pistol and revolver fire.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        In other words, the Nazi’s had little power in 1929, and spent much of their time in street brawls with Communists, and fulminating about the reparations Germany was required to pay after they lost WWI. The idea that Al-Husseini in Palestine could have “learned” anything from German Nazis about how to achieve power is preposterous on its face. Al Husseini already had more power than any Nazi in Germany and he got that power by being appointed to his post by Herbert Samuel, the British Zionist High Commissioner of Mandate Palestine. Your source for this nonsensical stuff is an utterly worthless screed.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 13, 2013, 4:25 pm

        “Several, in fact. One is ‘Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine’ (Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cuppers, Krista Smith) and Edwin Black’s ‘The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust.'”

        Talk about scapegoating…. The history is what it is, of course, but to even mention the Mufti in this context runs the risk, if not outright committing, a racist libel.

        To suggest that the Mufti’s actions and beliefs at the time reflected anything about Palestinians at the time is racist. To suggest that the Nazi’s plans for the land, had they conquered it, reflected anything about the Palestinians at the time is sheerest idiocy. To suggest that any of that is in any way relevant to the issues today is criminal and should be actionable.

        The more accurate title for both of these Books is “There Was An Arab Who Spent The War In Berlin. He Happened To Be Palestinian.” Of course, such a book, though more historically valid, would not stir the pot of anti-Palestinian racism, which is desperately desired by the Zionist community (results in more book sales and more lucre for the authors). It makes it easier to pretend that the zionist ethnic cleansing, pogroms and slow-motion genocide of Palestinians when you can paint innocent people in Palestine, whose only “crime” is being non-Jews, with the “Nazi” brush.

        The reality of the matter is that the Arabs wanted to end Zionism because they accurately foresaw from the middle of the 19th Century on, that the Jews who were coming to Palestine were coming to take over the land and to ethnically cleanse the people who actually had lived there from time immemorial — the Palestinians. They were right.

      • goldmarx
        March 13, 2013, 5:28 pm

        ‘Revisionist’ history by Israeli scholars have confirmed key parts of the Naqba, but like all double-edged swords, no one likes it when it cuts against them.

        Black has been ‘discredited’? About this? He was involved in a controversy about, if I recall correctly, IBM’s role in the Holocaust – he attacks big corporations. Perhaps IBM would like to see him as discredited, eh?

        If you want to be known as an apologist for the Mufti, fine. I sure hope you know what you’re doing.

      • tree
        March 13, 2013, 5:43 pm

        After “their” demonstration at the Western Wall? The demonstration was a Betar event, not Haganah, which was affiliated with Labor.

        The demonstrations, plural, at the Western Wall in Mid-August, 1929 (prior to the Massacre) were Zionist events. They were not particular to Betar, nor did Ben-Gurion nor the Labor Zionists denounce or refute the the purpose of the demonstrations which was to lay claim the Western Wall as a purely Jewish site and agitate to take possession of it away from the the Muslim waqf which had owned it for centuries and preserved the rights of Jews to pray there during all the time that the site was under their supervision. They were in fact highly inflammatory demonstrations, and in some Zionists’ minds were fully intended as such, as testified to contemporaneously by the American journalist Vincent Sheean. This is from his diary entry on August 15th, referring to a Jewish American woman, assistant to Gersho Agronsky, and a Zionist herself.

        Said she had to go to the Wailing Wall and write a telegram about it for the Times (as substitute for Gershon): would I go with her and help? I couldn’t understand why, but she said there was going to be “bust up”. She had come up from Tel-Aviv especially for this, as Gershon is supposed to be correspondent for the Times, and he is in Zurich…. Anyhow, she said the word had been passed round and hundreds of Haluzim (pioneers) were coming in during the afternoon and evening from the colonies and Tel-Aviv, ready to fight. I simply couldn’t believe all this. She said the Haluzim would be armed – “three-quarters of them”- and it would be a good thing if there was a row at the Wall, to ‘show that we are here’. … I went along with her when she came back. She was inconceivably cynical and flippant about the whole thing; said a row would be a very good thing for the Zionist cause , arouse world Jews and increase contributions to the new Agency.

        Vincent Sheean, Personal History, page 355.

        The only reason their was not a “row” at the Wall that day or the next was because the British police had a strong presence there, and the non-Jewish Palestinians stayed away and out of sight then. The only ones disturbing the Jewish prayers at the Wall those days were the Zionist members of the demonstrations.

        To try to pretend that it was simply the Mufti, or simply anti-semitism, that sparked the riots is to be willfully ignorant of the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians against Zionists, who were overwhelming European Jews. Not only was there the original Zionist call for a Jewish state in their homeland, the Zionists were also evicting Palestinian tenant farmers from their fields, instituting boycotts and violence against Palestinian agricultural workers and against Jews who either hired non-Jewish labor, or bought non-Jewish goods. They were also demanding that the British authorities use Jewish names for Palestinian towns, and give hiring preference to Jews as workers in the government and at the Haifa Refinery and pay them more than they paid non-Jewish workers. They were also refusing to agree to any Palestine legislative body being set up unless Jews were given control of half of all seats in such a body, despite the fact that Jews then constituted less than 20 percent of the population of Palestine. Add to that the volatility of religious feelings over the Western Wall, which is also a Muslim religious site as well as a Jewish one and its hard to see how ethnic riots could not have broken out, as a direct result of Zionist plans and actions in Palestine.

      • tree
        March 13, 2013, 6:24 pm

        More from Vincent Sheean, the American journalist who witnessed the events in Jerusalem in 1929, and who, BTW, was originally hired by Zionists to report on Palestine. This is his assessment of the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, whom he met and talked at length with during and after the disturbances in Jerusalem in August 1929.

        For three days this (British Mandate) government- if the word be applies with reservations- had to attempt to keep order without military aid. The British police in Palestine numbered about one hundred and seventy men. There was no military garrison. Until troops could be brought from Egypt, and ships from Malta, this tiny force was supposed to keep the whole country quiet-an obvious impossibility. Without power to crush the disorders, the government was obliged to rely heavily on the Moslem authorities themselves to restrain their people, for it became clear after the first day that the Jews were restricting themselves (except in isolated incidents) to self-defense, and that the attacks were for the most part attacks of Arab mobs upon Jews.

        The chief of the Arab authorities was the President of the Supreme Moslem Council, Haj Amin el-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He combined in his person the highest religious and judicial offices of Moslem Palestine, and exercised (through the the Arab Executive) an influence also upon the Christian Arab community. Such concentrations of religious, political and judicial authority are common in Arab countries, but perhaps not in the same degree. Haj Amin was in an unusually powerful position. I was told from the beginning that he was using his powers to keep the peace and have never seen any evidence against that view. Yet he was held responsible for the whole trouble by the Jewish world, and for years afterwards an ordinary Jewish view of the disturbances was that they were a “pogrom” carried out under the Grand Mufti’s orders.

        I found the Mufti an extremely level-headed, deliberate man, mild-mannered and thoughtful. Before I left Palestine I was to know him better, and was to appreciate the simplicity and straightforwardness of his character in more extended, less formal conversations. He was a patriot, a nationalist, a devout Moslem and an immovable opponent of the Zionist policy. Indeed in that respect he was as single-minded as anybody I have ever known. Nothing but death could have kept him from opposing Zionism by every means in his power. But Haj Amin was also a humane man, and such tragedies as these could not have come about by his will. My judgment of his character, after considerable opportunity to observe it, would have told me that the evidence afterwards showed; that he had opposed Zionism at every step and had fought the contention of Jewish ownership at the Wall from the beginning, but that his influence in the actual crisis had been used on the side of peace.

        The offices of the Supreme Moslem Council, overlooking the Temple area, were not given over to the confusion and hysteria that ruled in other offices in Jerusalem. They were sometimes crowded, but the Mufti’s refusal to get excited seeemed to have an influence on his immediate followers, and voices were not raised or hands flung in the air in those precincts. True, the Mufti was in little or no danger, but neither were the government officers’ and they, I could not help seeing, had allowed the press of events to shatter their composure. All five of the men who made up the government worked like slaves for that week, and and I used to see them at all hours of the night struggling with the telephone, with messengers, with orders, communiques, telegrams, documents. But they were inadequate; they were too few in number to get all their work done properly, and they had almost no actual power in a military sense. The tribes from over Jordan could have swept across Palestine in twenty-four hours. They might have been crushed by military force afterwards, but at the moment the government was feeble beyond belief-the feeblest government I had ever seen. If the Grand Mufti had not supported them it difficult to imagine how they could have got through the first three or four days at all.

        pages 371

        This assessment made during the very time period seems much more plausible than the one goldmarx presents. If the Mufti, as the most powerful Moslem official in Palestine, had truly been the source of the violence, the violence would have been much, much worse than it was. The Palestinians had numerous and legitimate grievances with the Zionists in Palestine in 1929, and once the antagonism between the two groups reached a boiling point, violence was probably inevitable. It easily could have and would have been much much worse if someone in such a powerful position intended it to be so.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 7:21 pm

        and edwin black’s been discredited since he did and about face after his wrists were slapped.

        Wow Annie really? I must have missed that episode. Could you provide me details? When was he slapped and by whom?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 8:53 pm

        oh ask mrw, he knows more than me. what i do know is after he wrote the transfer agreement he was persona non grata. then every copy of that book became unavailable. it was republished by another publisher w/an abe foxman forward after black turned over all his documents to some big jewish group. they insist it’s the same book, but as far as i know it’s virtually impossible to find a macmillan copy except at the library of congress and the equivalent in australia. they say they are macmilliam copies, because that’s what people search for, but they are not. and why did he turn over all his documents? but ask mrw, he knows more than i do.

      • sardelapasti
        March 13, 2013, 10:21 pm

        goldmarks – Why not defend the Mufti? After all, he has been steadfast in opposing Zionism, but also the British overlords of Palestine. The two main things that required attention in his times. See, we are talking Palestine. Looking at it from the Zionist viewpoint is the height of absurdity. They are only the problem.

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 3:52 pm

        “Why not defend the Mufti?”

        Well, someone pointed out that he was appointed to the Grand Mufti position by a Zionist, Herbert Samuel, so doesn’t that make the Mufti a Zionist agent? And are we not bound by the Mondoweiss Comment Section doctrine of reflexively opposing anyone linked to a Zionist?

        And, of course, there’s that small matter of his alliance with Hitler (what, you thought he spent 1941-45 in Berlin to sample the beer?)

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 3:55 pm

        Well, if Edwin Black ran afoul of that Darth Vader of Right-Wing Zionism, Abe Foxman, then does not the Arrow of Credibility point to Edwin Black for that reason alone?

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 4:06 pm

        The fact that a journalist interviews someone who appears calm before him means what, exactly? The Mufti was intelligent enough to know not to come off as a raving lunatic when talking to the press, as was his future ally, the man with the Charlie Chaplin moustache.

        Conflicts and disagreements were inevitable, but violence was not. The Nashashibi Palestinians were anti-Zionist but non-violent, for which they were later persecuted by the Mufti and the al-Husseini clan during the Arab uprising of 1936-1939. Unfortunately, the Mufti’s side won, which gave it unchallenged access and authority in the Palestinian community to preach anti-Semitism.

        By the way, the violence was worse than you suggested – Hebron was not the only place where the Mufti’s followers ran amok. But the Jews had the means to defend themselves with arms (if they chose to exercise that option) and many Palestinians were not with the Mufti, and that kept the level of violence from becoming worse than it did.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 15, 2013, 5:07 pm

        “Well, if Edwin Black ran afoul of that Darth Vader of Right-Wing Zionism, Abe Foxman, then does not the Arrow of Credibility point to Edwin Black for that reason alone?”

        Ha! Fat Abe’s not important enough to be Darth Vader. He’s more like the piece-of-crap-you-accidentally-step-on of Zionism.

      • sardelapasti
        March 15, 2013, 8:40 pm

        gold marc “that small matter of his alliance with Hitler (what, you thought he spent 1941-45 in Berlin to sample the beer?)”

        Of course, if I were a responsible leader opposing colonialism, and had additionally to carry the intolerable weight of armed invader bands of Zionists falling from some other planet, imposed by the colonial master, stealing my land, replacing all labor by more invaders, roaming across the country creating mayhem, who repeatedly and officially had declared their intention of subjugating politically all my country and some of its neighboring areas…
        of course I would try to ally myself with the Devil himself! Especially if the devil had several armed divisions. It could well have been a winning bet –unfortunate for humanity at large, of course, but beneficial to one’s own little particular situation.

        The same was done by Bose in India, and even by the Finns threatened by inclusion in the Soviet Union (attractive as an idea to me in my youth but not to the Finns at the time.)

        Whoever cannot see that is either a moron or someone convinced that the world revolves around the navel of his tribal identification.

        Anyway, I like your immortal crust, considering that Zionists not only were signing agreements with the Nazis, but also committing active acts of terrorism against Britain when the War was in full swing. Remember the Ankara offer by Lehi of a direct alliance with the Nazi government, directly authorized by your future “President”? No?

      • sardelapasti
        March 15, 2013, 8:46 pm

        “the violence was worse than you suggested – Hebron was not the only place where the Mufti’s followers ran amok.”

        Any violence is justified against colonial invaders who refuse to leave when asked politely, as they had been, repeatedly. What exactly was the business of those Zionists in what you call “Hebron”? What was the history of their past violence and theft? Also, all Palestinians were not automatically “Mufti’s followers”.

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 10:49 am

        The violence was directed indiscrimately against Jews – none of the Palestinians cried out, “Out, Zionists” (or the equivalent).

        And where do I say that all Palestinians were automatically followers of the Mufti? Did I not discuss the Nashashibi clan, which opposed the Mufti?

      • tree
        March 19, 2013, 11:21 pm

        The violence was directed indiscrimately against Jews – none of the Palestinians cried out, “Out, Zionists” (or the equivalent).

        Frankly, you have no idea what the Palestinians cried out. However, it seems necessary to point out to you that the Zionists were not calling for a “Zionist” homeland in Palestine. They were calling for a Jewish one. They were also not making restrictive covenants on their purchased lands that prevented “non-Zionists” from leasing or working on them. They were restricting non-Jews. They were also not calling for only Zionists to be given favoritism in hiring and pay but for all Jews to be given that preference. When they claimed “The Wall is Ours” they meant it was (or should have been) owned by Jews, not by “Zionists” and when they demanded unlimited immigration to Palestine, they were calling for increased “Jewish” immigration (although in reality the only Jews the Zionists allowed into Palestine were one’s that were believers and/or useful to the Zionists’ plans for conquest.) So even if the Palestinians had cried, “Out Jews!” its clear that more Jewish immigrants in Palestine were a clear threat to the Palestinian’s well-being.

        And the killing was not as indiscriminate as you indicate. Half of all the killing in the 1929 riots occurred in Hebron, even though the violence first started in Jerusalem, and Arabs were among the first casualties there. In Hebron, two thirds of the casualties were Ashkenazi Jews, and most of them were killed in a house belonging to the Sephardi head of the Anglo-Palestine (Zionist) bank.

        In Jerusalem, Yemeni Jews were protected by their Palestinian neighbors and were not threatened in anyway.

        In 1884 the first Yemenites settled in Silwan and for 45 years lived peacefully and in very good terms with their Arab neighbors. It seemed that the people of Silwan, which was known to be a poor village, found common ground with the poor Jewish Yemenites that lived among them.

        In the 1929 Arab Riots, not a single Jewish resident of Silwan (Shiloah village) was killed or injured. The Arab residents of the village, led by the Ghozlan family, sheltered their Jewish neighbors and prevented their attack. After a few days of rioting, the British, who mandated Palestine at that time, moved the Yemenite Jews into the old city. A group of Jews returned to live in Silwan after 1929, but following the 1936 Great Arab Revolt, all the Jews left the village.

        Despite the attempt to depict the 1929 Arab Riot as a violent incident against the Jews in Silwan, it is clear that it was not the case. From a letter of gratitude that the Yemenite Jews sent to their Arab neighbors, we can learn about the devotion and benevolence that the Arabs have shown towards the Yemenites by undauntedly protecting them, and also about the amity and good neighborly relations that prevailed between the two communities.

        link to alt-arch.org

      • tree
        March 19, 2013, 11:36 pm

        The fact that a journalist interviews someone who appears calm before him means what, exactly?

        I should have expected this kind of cluelessness from someone who thinks that the Mufti, a man from a long line of influential leaders, and, at the time in a powerful position himself, got all his ideas in 1929 from a political party half a continent away that couldn’t get more than 1% of the vote in its own country,

        The point was that the Mufti wielded considerable power in 1929, and the British authorities were in no position militarily or otherwise to put down a serious riot. If the Mufti had in fact wanted a serious riot, it would have easily been much bigger than the hundred plus killed on either side, because he was in a position to make it so. Its always easier to inflame a riot than it is to quell one and the riot was quelled, not by the British who didn’t have the numbers to do it, but by the Arabs themselves, who did.

        The Shaw Commission, which looked into the origins of the riot did not blame the Mufti for the riot, but rather placed the proximate cause on the disturbances around the Western Wall, and the long term cause on Arab fears for their economic future under the Balfour Declaration.

      • tree
        March 19, 2013, 11:54 pm

        From Philip Mattar The Mufti of Jerusalem:

        There is no solid evidence to indicate that the Mufti was involved in organizing the outbreaks of August 23. That morning he delivered a pacifying speech at the Haram al-Sharif (Islam’s third holiest shrone) to a crowd that had heard a rumor that Jews were going to attack the Haram. He asked the Friday speaker to instruct the people to remain clam, and after the sermon urded people to return to their villages. Reacting to the speech, some members of the audience accused him of being unfatithful. In an effort to forestall trouble, he sent word th the British police to increase quickly the number of units at the Hara, and when the crods came out of the Damascus gate, he tried to disperse them. Finally, when the violence spread that afternoon, he issued an appeal for Arabs to be patient.

        The Mufti’s actions on August 23 are not the only evidence that he did not organize the riots. The Shaw Commission, which investigated the vilence, reached the following conclusions”

        1. The immediate cause of the violence was the Revisionist Zionist demonstration of August 15, 1929.

        2. The violence was spontaneous, not organized by anyone.

        3. The violence took place in several towns, like Hebron, where the influence of the Mufti was weak, and did not take place in many towns where his influence was strong.

        4. A written appeal that the Mufti allegedly sent out for Arabs to come and defend the Haram was a forgery, probably written by a non-Arab.

        link to books.google.com

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 12:59 am

        from the link:

        The letter of gratitude attests not only to the compassion and morality of the Arab residents of Silwan, but also to the true coexistence between Arabs and Jews. It attests to daily lives of good neighborly relations, respect and mutual aid, to coexistence as a way of life. Other sentences in the letter express these sentiments:

        “…one of our respectable Arab brothers, residents of the Shiloah-Silwan village, and his kind friends…”

        “…and also today this good relationship prevails between us and our neighbors, all is quiet throughout our quarters…”

        “We are hopeful that this relationship will last between us and them for many years to come…”
        Despite the compassion and aid demonstrated by Muhammad Ghozlan when he protected the Yemenite Jews, the credit wasn’t in his family’s favor when the Ghozlan family evacuated from their house in 2006.

        When we examine the Yemenite settlement in Silwan, the attempt to depict the contemporary settlement of Elad as a continuation of that early Yemenite settlement, we view that there is clearly no connection between the 19th century neighborhood and the current settlement.

        We can conclude the history of the Jewish Yemenite settlement in Silwan with the words of Abed Shaludi, an Arab resident of Silwan: “We do not conceal that fact that Yemenite Jews lived here; on the contrary, we accepted them while the other Jews rejected them.”

      • gamal
        March 20, 2013, 1:27 am

        Dear Annie this reminds me of the clearing and demolition of Sophiatown, an area where white and black people had been fraternizing and a mixed community evolved
        link to sahistory.org.za

        i reviewed a fictionalized autobiography 30 or so years ago, called “familiarity is the kingdom of the lost” by Dugmore Beattie, its worth a look, one of the trickster novels so beloved of anti-colonial cultures, he describes the dislocation and loss that the destruction caused.

        link to books.google.com.jm

      • MRW
        March 20, 2013, 2:23 am

        Shingo,

        This might explain some, a Channel 5 NYC news account that keeps getting bounced. Not even searchable.

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 7:39 am

        Thanks MRW.

        Annie was kond enough to link to all your posts on the subject.

        May I ask what changes appeared in Black’s book after Foxman “edited” it? Has Black been asked about this and if so, what has been his explanation for the changes on editions that came after 1984?

        Cheers,

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 11:23 am

        Woody: “To suggest that the Mufti’s actions and beliefs at the time reflected anything about Palestinians at the time is racist.” Quite the contrary, as the representative of the al-Husseini clan, he spoke for a significant sector of Palestinians.

        “The reality of the matter is that the Arabs wanted to end Zionism because they accurately foresaw from the middle of the 19th Century on…” Reality? Zionism was founded in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland. If Arab violence against Jews in Palestine preceded 1897, that tells you quite a bit about its actual motivation.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 1:20 pm

        Tree: While I will comment more on this soon, I find it interesting that the Shaw Commission does say that the demonstration was the Revisionist Zionist’s doing (I mentioned its youth movement, Betar), and I took heat for allegedly omitting other Zionist movements’ participation. Perhaps those posters should direct their objections to Shaw & Co.?

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Tree: Zionist officials were not calling for a Zionist homeland, but they called themselves Zionists, and did not hide that from anyone.

        It would have been a simple matter to go after anyone known to be a Zionist. It was well known that the Jews who had settled in Hebron prior to 1897 were Orthodox and anti-Zionist, since their motive was to pray for the arrival of the Messiah (instead, they got the Mufti…)

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 8:22 pm

        Quite the contrary, as the representative of the al-Husseini clan, he spoke for a significant sector of Palestinians.

        The Muslim Committee responsible for voting on the list of candidates in the run-off elections for the position of Mufti awarded the most votes to Jaralla, followed by Khalidi and Budayri. Since only the top three candidates were supposed to be considered Amin Husseni was shut out. It was an atheist Jew, Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, who intervened and overturned the results of the election. See Philp Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia, 1992, page 25 link to books.google.com

        On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”

        That proposal was rejected by the representatives of the Jewish people. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The fact is that the Jews simply lied when they promised to respect the rights of non-Jews in order to obtain international support for the idea of establishing a so-called Jewish state instead. In order to conceal that situation, they employ irrelevant talking points about the former Mufti.

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 11:33 pm

        It was well known that the Jews who had settled in Hebron prior to 1897 were Orthodox and anti-Zionist

        Nonsense. The Slonim family arrived in Hebron in the early 1800s. Eliezer Slonim was the director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, a subsidiary of the Zionist Organization. It just makes for better hasbara to pretend he and the victims were all anti-Zionists.
        link to haaretz.com

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 2:37 am

        Hostage: How many times do I have to say ‘1897’? That’s when Zionism began. ANY family that arrived in Hebron prior to 1897 could not have been Zionist because ZIONISM DID NOT EXIST.

        Now, genius, what part of that don’t you understand?

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:07 am

        Hostage: “The Jews simply lied…” Actually, that would be the Zionist leadership that lied, but keep it up. This glimpse into your mindset is fascinating.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 11:21 am

        goldmarx, other than your determination to oversee the discourse wrt your perceptions of anti semitism do you have any comments wrt the content of hostages rebuttal? anything of value wrt the argument re the ‘leadership':

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Amin Husseni was shut out. It was an atheist Jew, Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, who intervened and overturned the results of the election………..

        In order to conceal that situation, they employ irrelevant talking points about the former Mufti.

      • tree
        March 22, 2013, 1:43 pm

        Now, genius, what part of that don’t you understand?

        Genius in this case appears to be anyone brighter that you, which is not a particularly rigorous standard. Let me explain this to you in simple terms. Anyone killed in the 1929 riots was alive AFTER 1897. Therefore it is not only temporally possible for Slonim to have been a Zionist in 1929, it is a fact that he was one.

        As for this one,

        Tree: Zionist officials were not calling for a Zionist homeland, but they called themselves Zionists, and did not hide that from anyone.

        It would have been a simple matter to go after anyone known to be a Zionist.

        you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Do you think that Zionists always wore some kind of distinctive uniform? Perhaps a cape and a leotard with a big Z on it, like Captain Israel?? We are talking about an ethnic riot here. Mobs in riots don’t stop to ask people’s political positions and even if they did, the language barrier makes it well nigh impossible to get an answer. The Zionist Jews in the main were not easily distinguishable from other Ashkenazi Jews, most of whom were recent arrivals chosen for immigration for their Zionist beliefs anyway. It appears that as far as Jewish victims go, they were mainly Ashkenazi, distinguishable from Arab Jews by dress and language, and most associated with Zionism in Palestine. (Although, like Slonim, there were some Arab Jews who were Zionists as well. ) Likewise, I doubt the Arab victims killed by Jews in Haifa were asked their opinions or attitudes before they were slaughtered. However, we have it on record that the mob at Slonim’s house asked him to give up his Ashkenazi Jews, so there was some sort of distinction among Jews made by the Arab mob. Whether there was any distinction made by the Jewish mob before it slaughtered is unknown.

        There is no record of this kind of violence in Palestine prior to the arrival of Zionist pioneers in Palestine. There is ample evidence that the Zionists practice of restrictive covenants based on religion/ethnicity and their demands for special favors from the British authority for Jews in detriment to the indigenous non-Jewish population caused a great deal of anger and friction. And of course, many of the European Jews brought with them their prejudice and disdain for Arabs with them. This did not go unnoticed by the local population.

        As for your pretense that you are somehow vindicated by the Shaw Commission report because it laid blame on the Revisionist demonstration, I pointed out that although the demonstrations were organized by the revisionist groups, the demonstration itself was not limited to only Betar youth, included a cross-section of Zionist youth and none of the Zionist leaders of the day tried to stop the demonstration nor did they condemn it afterward or distance themselves from it. It was clearly a Zionist demonstration. Meanwhile, in Europe and the Americas, the main Zionist organizations(precursors to the Labor Party) were using pamphlets showing a recreation of the Third Temple in place of the Haram al-Sharif in appeals for funds.

        I also note your duplicity in claiming vindication from the Shaw Commission, when one of its primary conclusions was that the Grand Mufti was NOT responsible for the riots. You continue to pound the idea that he was. And you also earlier claimed that one of the ways the Mufti provoked the riot was by falsely claiming that the Zionists had held a demonstration at the Wall, claiming it was theirs. I take it you know acknowledge that such a demonstration did take place?

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2013, 8:24 pm

        “How many times do I have to say ’1897′? That’s when Zionism began.”

        Simply not true. The first Zionist Congress in 1897 brought together people who were already Zionists. Learn a bit of the history of Zionism.

      • Hostage
        March 24, 2013, 12:19 am

        Hostage: How many times do I have to say ’1897′? That’s when Zionism began. ANY family that arrived in Hebron prior to 1897 could not have been Zionist because ZIONISM DID NOT EXIST.

        Now, genius, what part of that don’t you understand?

        The part which conflates the 1st Zionist Congress with the existence of Zionism.

        Nahum Sokolow became the Secretary General of the World Zionist Congress in 1906. He was a member of the Zionist delegation that attended the Versailles Peace Conference.

        He also wrote:
        * History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Volume 1, Longmans, Green and Company, 1919
        link to books.google.com
        * History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Volume 2, Longmans, Green and Co., 1919
        link to books.google.com

        Now stupid, what part of that don’t you understand?

      • Hostage
        March 24, 2013, 12:47 am

        Hostage: “The Jews simply lied…” Actually, that would be the Zionist leadership that lied, but keep it up. This glimpse into your mindset is fascinating.

        The so-called “Zionist leadership” constantly referred to themselves and others as “the Jews” or “the Jewish People”, not “the Zionists” or “the Zionist leadership”. Note that the 16th Congress overturned the decision of the 13th Congress and enlarged the Jewish Agency by including so-called “non-Zionists”. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        Anyone familiar with their testimony to the UNSCOP fact finding mission, the Security Council, and the former League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission is aware of the fact that they usually called themselves “the Jews”.

        The only fascinating insight you’ll get on my mindset is that I usually employ the terms and spelling found in the original sources that I cite, even when that’s a bit confusing, e.g. Faysal/Feisal/Faisal as such.

        For example:

        Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that.

        link to unispal.un.org

        When Ben Gurion said “We are against that,” do you suppose he had a frog in his pocket, or was he speaking for “the Jews”? When the spokesman for “the Jewish Agency” announces that “the Jewish people” accepted the UN partition plan and provided the required declaration regarding the protection of minorities, where does it say that he is only speaking for “the Zionist leadership”?

      • goldmarx
        March 28, 2013, 4:56 pm

        Sardeapasti: When were the Zionists ever asked to leave politely by the Palestinians?

      • goldmarx
        March 28, 2013, 5:15 pm

        The part of your post that believes that Nahum Sokolow is a reliable source. Your foundational assumption on this blog (and not just yours) is that Zionists, especially the Zionist leadership, always lie.

      • goldmarx
        March 28, 2013, 5:30 pm

        Hostage: And because they referred to themselves as Jews, you take them at their word? You adopt their point of reference? Zionists are liars, remember?

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2013, 6:51 pm

        The part of your post that believes that Nahum Sokolow is a reliable source. Your foundational assumption on this blog (and not just yours) is that Zionists, especially the Zionist leadership, always lie.

        I don’t assume that Nahum Sokolow is a reliable source. I assume that anyone who served as the Secretary General and President of the World Zionist Organization was a very proficient liar.

        But if you’re a Zionist hell-bent on calling others stupid, then you need to remember to keep your fabricated stories straight. Some of us here are very familiar with the published details.

      • Hostage
        March 31, 2013, 2:10 pm

        Hostage: And because they referred to themselves as Jews, you take them at their word? You adopt their point of reference? Zionists are liars, remember?

        No. Whenever we are discussing the Zionists and their agenda, it is perfectly appropriate and acceptable to use the same terms that they used and to discuss the same subjects that they discussed. That doesn’t mean we have adopted their views.

    • MK_Ultra
      March 10, 2013, 7:13 pm

      …that the Palestinians be granted a non-existent right of return, that there is a single state from the river to sea and that the Jewish people become a minority within whatever emerges from that process.

      Did ya ever? In other words, don’t even think of doing to the jews as the jews have done to the Palestinians. And that’s your final answer, of course.

  9. Obsidian
    March 10, 2013, 1:01 pm

    And wither the 56 member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)?

    • traintosiberia
      March 10, 2013, 1:52 pm

      can you elaborate? You are onto something.

      • hophmi
        March 10, 2013, 6:51 pm

        Yes, what about them? What will they do in this world of non-religious states? My prediction? They will be laughing their asses off.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 10, 2013, 7:10 pm

        Who is “they” hophmi? The jews or the religious Arabs? Can you elaborate?

      • hophmi
        March 11, 2013, 10:20 am

        “Who is “they” hophmi? The jews or the religious Arabs? Can you elaborate?”

        The members of the OIC.

      • Obsidian
        March 11, 2013, 1:25 am

        Nothing to elaborate on. Fifty-six countries openly and unreservedly identify themselves as a religious (Islam) State, yet no liberal, Jewish, tenured college professors have a word to say about it.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 11, 2013, 6:51 pm

        “Fifty-six countries openly and unreservedly identify themselves as a religious (Islam) State”
        Because it’s what they are. Unreservedly. Exactly. They don’t force it on any objecting part within as Israel does.. Israel forces its Palestinian minority to accept a definition they don’t identify with. Which excludes them.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 8:52 am

        Fifty-six countries openly and unreservedly identify themselves as a religious (Islam) State, yet no liberal, Jewish, tenured college professors have a word to say about it

        That’s because none of them are delusional enough o describe themselves as a religious State and a democracy…except one.

      • Obsidian
        March 12, 2013, 11:06 am

        @Shingo

        “That’s because none of them are delusional enough to describe themselves as a religious State and a democracy..”

        Really? How do they describe themselves than?

        “to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance, rule of law, democracy and accountability in Member States in accordance with their constitutional and legal systems”–OIC Charter

        link to oic-oci.org

      • pjdude
        March 13, 2013, 2:04 pm

        um wrong they have a state religion which is different.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 9:50 pm

        Really? How do they describe themselves than?

        The OIC might like to think it promotes Democratic, but it’s member states fundamentally reject it. So my point stands, none of the states pretend to be both Islamic theocracies and democracies.

      • Hostage
        March 30, 2013, 7:53 pm

        Fifty-six countries openly and unreservedly identify themselves as a religious (Islam) State

        Actually the Charter contains a number of reservations and stipulations that accommodate the promotion of democracy within the constitutions and legal systems of the member states. Some of them, like Turkey, have constitutions which are not unreservedly Islamic. You guys need to get your facts straight.

    • Hostage
      March 30, 2013, 7:36 pm

      And wither the 56 member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)?

      First of all it’s a Conference. Countries with large Muslim populations and strictly secular constitutions, like Turkey, are welcomed as members. Secular organizations, including the UN, are welcomed as observers.

      The Charter of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference) requires the members:
      to adhere our commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter, the present Charter and International Law;

      to preserve and promote the lofty Islamic values of peace, compassion, tolerance, equality, justice and human dignity;

      to contribute to international peace and security, understanding and dialogue among civilizations, cultures and religions and promote and encourage friendly relations and good neighbourliness, mutual respect and cooperation;

      to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance, rule of law, democracy and accountability in Member States in accordance with their constitutional and legal systems;
      link to oic-oci.org

      By way of comparison, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has no published charter and excludes Jewish organizations that are critical of Israel or support the BDS movement. There are no secular observer organizations. Under “What we do” the Conference lists:
      *strengthen and foster the special U.S.-Israel relationship.
      *ensure that Israel’s interests are heard and understood by policy makers, opinion molders and the American public.
      *address critical foreign policy issues that impact the American Jewish community.
      *represent the interests of organized American Jewry.
      *protect and enhance the security and dignity of Jews around the world.
      link to conferenceofpresidents.org

  10. American
    March 10, 2013, 1:17 pm

    “But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state [is anti-Semitic because it] amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained…”

    Well…. no shit Sherlock!
    Anti semitism to Zionism is actually in NOT treating the Jews differently….it demands Jews be treated ‘differently’ than other people….. given privileges and rights above all others in all things regardless of any and everyone else who might be hurt by it.

    Well let them ride, ride, ride their differentness horse to their appointment in Israeli Samarra

    ”Once long ago, in the great city of Ispahan a rich merchant sent his servant to the market on an important errand. But the servant returned too soon and, breathless, begged his master to lend him a horse so he could flee immediately to the distant city of Samarra.
    “What trouble?” asked the merchant.
    “Oh master, as I entered the market square I spied the figure of Death, who made a threatening gesture toward me.”

    The merchant instantly dispatched his servant to the stables for the fastest mount, and after learning of his safe departure, proceeded to the market on the errand his servant had begun. Entering the square, he saw the figure of Death. “Why did you threaten my servant this morning?” the merchant demanded.

    “Ah, sir,” replied Death with a grave smile. “I did not threaten. My gesture was one of surprise. I was surprised to find your servant here in Ispahan this morning, when later this evening we have an appointment in Samarra.”

  11. K Renner
    March 10, 2013, 1:19 pm

    Just once I would like to see the creep apologists for Israel try and argue their “views” without mentioning “anti Semitism” once.

    • NormanF
      March 10, 2013, 5:09 pm

      That’s not possible because opposition to Jewish self-determination involves stripping the Jews of it by forcing millions of people to relinquish that right based on who they are. And that more or less is anti-Semitism. Its sophistry and disingenuous to pretend its anything else in intent and aim.

      • MRW
        March 10, 2013, 6:58 pm

        Complete BS. It’s sophistry on your part to equate basic existence and self-determination (of any group or person) with the sausage-making of nation-building.

        As the French aptly put it when Jews demanded two provinces within the newly formed French nation in 1789, with their own government, No, Jews can exist in France qua individual, they cannot exist qua nation.

      • Marco
        March 10, 2013, 7:37 pm

        MRW – I haven’t heard of this episode in the French Revolution. Would those provinces have been in Alsace-Lorraine? Do you know of any sources? A quick search didn’t turn up anything.

      • MRW
        March 10, 2013, 10:13 pm

        Marco,

        It is was a big discussion here on MW. It’s in the archives here, but I can’t remember who brought it up. The links were to historical French govt docs mentioned in a book, as I recall. Maybe if you use google with ‘mondoweiss.net’ and ‘qua individual qua nation’ as search terms you’ll find it. My recollection is that they wanted western or southwestern provinces (with access to the ocean), but don’t hold me to that.

        Wait a minute, I found it. It was American’s post:
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • MRW
        March 10, 2013, 10:24 pm

        It’s on page 114 of “The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History”, 2nd Edition, By Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, Jehuda Reinharz

      • MK_Ultra
        March 10, 2013, 7:07 pm

        LOL! So, in your world, opposition to Apartheid, genocide, racism, crimes against another ethnic group, etc. is “anti-semitic™”? Wow, what a tangled web some weave when the world they are trying to deceive!

      • Sumud
        March 10, 2013, 7:24 pm

        Rubbish.

        You’re not interested in “jewish self-determination” you want jewish supremacism. Stop lying to yourself.

        I’m an atheist. Pls observe there is no movement for “atheist self-determination” because such a concept is absurd. I live in a western democracy and I have equal rights with everybody else. That is self-determination and that’s the best you reasonably hope for.

      • NormanF
        March 11, 2013, 3:35 am

        I believe in God. And what He taught through His prophets concerning the role of a restored Israel.

        He ordered nations in a certain way and made Israel to be a “light to the nations.”

        The Jewish view isn’t that Israel is special or lords it over others; rather the thought expressed by the prophets of Israel is the Jews will show the world what an enlightened, peaceful and tolerant society can be like. In other words, Israel is a model for the world.

        And yes, I see that prophetic prediction being eventually fulfilled.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 11, 2013, 8:33 am

        “I believe in God. And what He taught through His prophets concerning the role of a restored Israel.
        He ordered nations in a certain way and made Israel to be a “light to the nations.””
        Not that we couldn’t figure it out. A nutter.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 11, 2013, 8:43 am

        “I see that prophetic prediction being eventually fulfilled.”
        What I can see and predict is your imminent self-destruction drunk driving straight into the wall of your arrogance and greed.

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 9:08 am

        The Jewish view isn’t that Israel is special or lords it over others; rather the thought expressed by the prophets of Israel is the Jews will show the world what an enlightened, peaceful and tolerant society can be like. In other words, Israel is a model for the world.

        Let us all reflect on one zionist’s vision of utopia, “Israel is a model for the world”:

        Chris Hedges – America: The Silence of a Nation

      • Blake
        March 11, 2013, 9:37 am

        But what does it actually say Norman F?

        Zionism is completely contradictory to Judaism. Judaism is subservience to the Almighty, been practiced for thousands of years a Covenant with God to be subservient to Him and Zionism is a relatively new movement, a hijacking of a religion into a nationalistic political movement.

        At the destruction of the Temple 2000 years ago Jews were given an edict, a prophecy from Solomon that they are not to attempt to recreate their sovereignty – it was/is expressly forbidden. Jews wait for the day when God will make a miracle and they will automatically serve Him in harmony then they won’t have to convince an atheist that there Is a God everybody will recognize there is a God and they will serve Him. Prior to that event they are expressly forbidden to make any attempt of Jewish nationalism or sovereignty.

        That was respected & upheld by Jews throughout the trials & tribulations of the Inquisition, the Crusades & every time period when they could have easily bought land they never did it because they understood that was against the will of the Almighty & what it means to be a Jew.

        When the concept of Zionism was developed the Jewish Rabbinical authorities said that it was expressly forbidden for Jews to create a state as to do so goes against the will of God and is not subservience to God , it’s a nationalism awa as its actions when creating a state the concept of stealing from a people or killing is all forbidden according to the Torah so in every facet Zionism is a rebellion against the command of God.

        It also says in the Torah if you rebel against God it will bring catastrophic results and Zionism has brought catastrophic results on its followers.

      • eljay
        March 11, 2013, 9:48 am

        >> In other words, Israel is a model for the world.

        Really? An oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state born of terrorims and ethnic cleansing and maintained and expanded by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder – that’s a model for the world?

        Zio-supremacists really are nuts…

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 10:06 am

        “He ordered nations in a certain way and made Israel to be a ‘light to the nations.'”

        It’s a shame that ANYONE believes such racist garbage.

        “In other words, Israel is a model for the world.”

        As an ethno-religious supremacist and apartheid racist state, only a model of what NOT to be.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 11, 2013, 10:06 am

        “Not that we couldn’t figure it out. A nutter.”

        Exactly right.

      • Citizen
        March 11, 2013, 11:46 am

        @ NormanF

        Israel is a model for the world? So USA should dump its founding principles, such as a state subject to be directed by the informed consent of the majority of all its citizens, but with equal rights before the law for all, including its ethnic, racial, religious minorities, due process, and separation of religion and state by virtue of constitutional amendment?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:04 pm

        NormanF – – Do you support continuing occupation of the West Bank by Israel?

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 9:49 pm

        I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and his book says I can take your home. So you’ll be OK with that right?

        Presumably you’re also OK with genocide, rape & slavery given how down with it the Lord’s prophets have been.

        AKA irrational nutcase attempts to support his argument by pointing out that he’s an irrational nutcase.

      • eljay
        March 10, 2013, 8:28 pm

        >> That’s not possible because opposition to Jewish self-determination involves stripping the Jews of it by forcing millions of people to relinquish that right based on who they are.

        No-one anywhere in the world has the right to strip a Jew of his right to be a Jew.

        And Jews do not have the right to group together and use terrorism and ethnic cleansing to create oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state, and to maintain and expand that state by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

  12. Yitzgood
    March 10, 2013, 1:57 pm

    This argument–that “any state that ‘belongs’ to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality”–is an anti-Zionist commonplace which raises the obvious objection that it invalidates all national movements, including the Palestinian nationalist movement it ostensibly supports. Levine–to use his terms–is inviting but failing to acknowledge the question of whether France is also bad because not everybody in France is French in the ethnic sense although the civic sense of Frenchness does not seem to be entirely divorced from the ethnic one. (The words of the French national anthem, for instance, are always going to be in French, not Italian.) So what gives?

    • RoHa
      March 10, 2013, 9:32 pm

      “the obvious objection that it invalidates all national movements, including the Palestinian nationalist movement it ostensibly supports.”

      It invalidates all ethnic nationalist movements. If that includes a Palestinian nationalist movement, fine. What the argument supports is equal rights for Palestinians.

      “the civic sense of Frenchness does not seem to be entirely divorced from the ethnic one. (The words of the French national anthem, for instance, are always going to be in French, not Italian.) ”

      There is nothing “ethnic” about having a common language in a country.

      • Yitzgood
        March 12, 2013, 11:19 pm

        It invalidates all ethnic nationalist movements. If that includes a Palestinian nationalist movement, fine. What the argument supports is equal rights for Palestinians.

        Simply arguing for an absolutely egalitarian and ethnically blind system in the territory Israel controls–Green-line Israel plus the West Bank–doesn’t advance the goals that Palestinians advance publicly. That territory has a solid Jewish majority. Is your proposed egalitarian state allowed to use democratic means to determine its immigration policy? That means no Palestinian right of return unless the Jewish majority votes for it.

        There is nothing “ethnic” about having a common language in a country.

        Language has a great deal to do with what people generally perceive as ethnic division. Canada has a French separatist movement.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 5:30 am

        Simply arguing for an absolutely egalitarian and ethnically blind system in the territory Israel controls–Green-line Israel plus the West Bank–doesn’t advance the goals that Palestinians advance publicly.

        What goals are you referring to?

        That territory has a solid Jewish majority.

        No it doesn’t. In fact, it has been confirmed that Palestinians are a majority in all Palestine.

        Language has a great deal to do with what people generally perceive as ethnic division. Canada has a French separatist movement.

        French is spoken throughout all of Canada dufus. Yo really don;t have a clue what you are talking about.

      • eljay
        March 13, 2013, 11:14 am

        >> That territory has a solid Jewish majority.

        Nothing that a little ethnic cleansing of Jews can’t resolve, right? I mean, if it’s acceptable for Jews to engage in it, to profit from it and not to be held accountable for it, surely it’s acceptable for others to do the same…right?

        Hmmm…unless this is another one of those cases where Jews are entitled to special privileges…

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:44 pm

        Belgium offers a good example, with Flanders and Wallonia. Flanders likely would have remained part of The Netherlands, had it not been Catholic.

      • Yitzgood
        March 13, 2013, 11:14 pm

        French is spoken throughout all of Canada dufus. Yo really don;t have a clue what you are talking about.

        Only Quebec has a majority of people who regard themselves as primarily French-speakers, and there is a Quebec separatist (or “Sovereginty”) movement. Are Basques ethnically distinct? Does it have something to do with their language?

      • Shingo
        March 14, 2013, 12:37 am

        Only Quebec has a majority of people who regard themselves as primarily French-speakers, and there is a Quebec separatist (or “Sovereginty”) movement.

        1. The majority consider themselves bi-lingual. Having lived there for 5 years, I should know.

        2. The separatists are a fringe radical group. In fact, the separatist movement is all but dead.

    • tree
      March 11, 2013, 1:10 am

      You speak English, Yitzgood. Are you trying to say that makes you ethnically English?

      • Yitzgood
        March 12, 2013, 11:21 pm

        You speak English, Yitzgood. Are you trying to say that makes you ethnically English?

        There are ethnic tensions between English speakers and Spanish speakers in the US, where I live. “Ethnic tensions” is correct terminology? Language has a great deal to do with what people perceive as ethnic divisions.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 11:52 pm

        There are ethnic tensions between English speakers and Spanish speakers in the US, where I live.

        where’s that? i live in california. almost 50% spanish speaking. what tension? california would sink like a stone sans our hispanic culture.it’s everywhere.it/they glorify us. we would not be who we are w/out them. i can’t speak for the nation but i can speak for california/arizona/new mexico and the whole southwest. yessssss

      • Yitzgood
        March 13, 2013, 11:25 pm

        I live in California, too, and I agree with you about the glories of hispanic culture. However, surely you remember Prop 187? You don’t speak for Californians who voted for it, do you?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 11:52 pm

        there are 37,172,015 people in california. in 1994 there were over 30 million and 26% of the state’s population was hispanic (now it’s closer to 40%). that vote was in relation to 1.3 million undocumented immigrants. California has the largest migrant (seasonal) farmworker population in the U.S. i don’t think the vote can be seen as a racist referendum. 23% of the hispanic voters (who voted) voted for the referendum. personally, i didn’t like it and was glad it was shot down by the courts. the agriculture here (i think the largest agro industry in the country) is dependent on migrant (seasonal)workers. and i think we should provide medical for them and schooling for their kids because without them, we’d be up a creek. but that’s not the same as asking whether everyone who voted for this legislation did so because they have ‘tension’ with ‘the hispanic community’, which overwhelmingly is not a migrant community.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:32 am

        i don’t think the vote can be seen as a racist referendum

        I doubt that everyone who voted for it voted for the same reason. A fair number who did can probably be described as nativists. In any event, maybe we mean something different by “tensions.” There is some friction, some irritation, in-group, out-group feelings. I wasn’t asserting that inter-ethnic relations are bad over-all.

    • NormanF
      March 11, 2013, 3:37 am

      Every nationalist movement claims pride in its people, land, culture and achievements.

      In this respect, the Jews are exactly like the rest. Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as all the others are or none of them are.

      • Sumud
        March 11, 2013, 9:17 am

        In this respect, the Jews are exactly like the rest. Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as all the others are or none of them are.

        If you support nationalism without qualification then you must also support aryan nationalism, ie. naziism.

        You are in favour of naziism right?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 3:08 pm

        @NormanF- Are you not overlooking the fact much of Israeli nationalism is devoted to destroying Palestinian nationalism?

      • RoHa
        March 11, 2013, 10:59 pm

        “In this respect, the Jews are exactly like the rest.”

        Not quite. Jews are not a nation.

        ” Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as all the others are or none of them are.”

        If none of them are legitimate, fine.

      • eljay
        March 12, 2013, 10:09 am

        Every nationalist movement claims pride in its people, land, culture and achievements.

        In this respect, the Jews are exactly like the rest. Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as all the others are or none of them are.

        Israeli nationalism could be like every other nationalism. Jewish nationalism – because it is, fundamentally, religion-based supremacism – is not and never can be like every other nationalism.

      • pjdude
        March 13, 2013, 2:08 pm

        except for the fact jews aren’t a nation. I’ll ask my favorite question to those who push this again. show one major connection not related to religion in their “nation”

      • Yitzgood
        March 13, 2013, 11:57 pm

        except for the fact jews aren’t a nation. I’ll ask my favorite question to those who push this again. show one major connection not related to religion in their “nation”

        If Jews upset contemporary notions of how religion is different from nationality, that’s perfectly alright with me. Is the Hebrew language a “major connection”? It isn’t “not related” to religion, I suppose, but that disqualifies its role as a national unifying factor? That seems to be the premise of your question. What if I don’t accept your premise?

      • sardelapasti
        March 14, 2013, 12:15 am

        Isgood “Is the Hebrew language a “major connection”?”
        Yiddish sure is for the Ostyiddish, Spanish for the Sefardís (and none of them are “general Jewish”) but not Hebrew, which was not a mother tongue of anyone for 2400 years. The present “modern Hebrew” is by all accounts and descriptions a constructed language, invented by Zionists. First speaker born in 1904. In fact, it is a mark of Zionism (except for the few who had to grow up with it but got rid of the Zionism.)
        So Biblical Hebrew is strictly ritualistic and religion-related, while “Modern Hebrew” is a Zionist invention.

        Any other non-religious cultural element to propose, anyone?

      • RoHa
        March 14, 2013, 1:09 am

        “If Jews upset contemporary notions of how religion is different from nationality…”

        That means “Jews are not a nation in the ordinary sense of the term (contemporary notions of nationality) but something different, but I want to use the word “nation” to pretend they are a nation in the ordinary sense.”

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:15 am

        So Biblical Hebrew is strictly ritualistic and religion-related

        That’s supposed to be a statement about what sort of language it is?

        while “Modern Hebrew” is a Zionist invention.

        It was an adaptation of Hebrew. You make it sound like that Klingon language that somebody made up. A whole intellectual tradition was carried on in Hebrew in post-Biblical times in a Hebrew that isn’t exactly Biblical Hebrew. You’re very glib at dismissing things of that sort.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:57 am

        That means “Jews are not a nation in the ordinary sense of the term (contemporary notions of nationality) but something different, but I want to use the word “nation” to pretend they are a nation in the ordinary sense.”

        The Jewish religion has always had an influence on Jewish life such that Jews differed from other people in ways that we associate with nations: language, dress, diet. I really don’t care what term one uses for Jewish people-hood. Nachmanides lived in Palestine at the end of his life in the 13th century and wrote a classic biblical commentary in Hebrew–the world’s only surviving uniquely Palestinian language. Jews all over the world were trying to give their children the Hebrew instruction needed to read works such as that commentary and every Jewish community had a fair number of members who could. Nachmanides re-established the Jewish community in Jerusalem also. Passsover is coming. I am going to have two seders because I live in chutz la’aretz. For some reason, I don’t think Israel’s significance for Jews was invented by the Zionist movement. I think the Mondoweiss crowd gives Zionism too much credit for Zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 9:14 am

        Hebrew–the world’s only surviving uniquely Palestinian language.

        oh my.

        Jews differed from other people in ways that we associate with nations: language, dress, diet.

        that must have been a long time ago. i don’t know any jewish people who dress in a significantly different way than everyone else in my surroundings. they talk the same too. of course, i live in the san francisco bay area, maybe the jewish community here isn’t typical.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 9:30 am

        It was an adaptation of Hebrew.

        i thought they created lots of new hebrew words. do you mean all those new words were an adaptation of original hebrew words?

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 11:12 am

        that must have been a long time ago

        My mother’s sisters all spoke Yiddish, but my mother was born in the US and only spoke a few words of Yiddish. (I’m in my early 50s.) The Yemenite Jews came out of Yemen with long payess. Assimilated American Jews meet your description and generally aren’t all that interested in making Aliyah either. Jewish commitment generally increases attachment to Israel. I’m interested in what the “oh my” meant. Hebrew is a uniquely Palestinian language.

      • seafoid
        March 14, 2013, 11:18 am

        It was closer to Klingon . There were no words in the bible or religious ritual for phrases like “hey Arab, the border police are going to stick this up your a*s”
        It all had to be invented

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 11:19 am

        you mean all those new words were an adaptation of original hebrew words?

        Many are. I don’t know how many. Mazleg for fork is from a Biblical word referring to a larger implement, I think. Tut–strawberry–means a different berry if you encounter it in, say, Shulchan Aruch.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 11:21 am

        @ Annie, I guess that’s why Yitzgood used the past tense “differed.” The Roma differed in the senses he says too, and they still do a bit, although, judging from the Gypsy reality shows on cable TV, they no longer differ so much either–yet they are Jesus believers. Maybe he should refer to cultural baggage, rather than religious baggage? The Roma culture, judging by those US reality shows, is still immersed in marrying among their own. They cherish their tribalism–though they are Christians. You can see the same tribalism and cultural goals to marry among their own in the Shahs reality show (Persian Jews in USA), and in the Russian Dolls reality show (Jews from the former USSR).

        On the food aspect, the only comfort food in this context that has a direct religious aspect to it is the Jewish devision between kosher and non-kosher foods.

      • Light
        March 14, 2013, 11:36 am

        Hebrew–the world’s only surviving uniquely Palestinian language.

        Tell me Yitzgood, prior to Zionism, when was Hebrew last a spoken language in Palestine? What language was spoken in Palestine when the Romans destroyed the 2nd Temple? In the last 2000 years, other than for religious purposes, when and where have Jews spoken Hebrew? How is the Jewish connection to Hebrew different from the Roman Catholic connection to Latin?

      • Light
        March 14, 2013, 12:01 pm

        Hebrew–the world’s only surviving uniquely Palestinian language.

        What a myopic view.

      • Light
        March 14, 2013, 12:23 pm

        First speaker born in 1904

        The first non-native speakers were using Hebrew in the 1870’s. The first native speaker was born in 1882.

        That doesn’t change the fact that modern Hebrew is a language revived by non native speakers. Image if native English speakers were to revive Latin with hardly more than a Bible as source material? How close would the resulting language be to what the Romans spoke? Even assuming that they had complete grammar and vocabulary, how could they possibly get the pronunciation and accent correct?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 2:11 pm

        it’s so limiting. doesn’t ‘the universe’s only surviving uniquely Palestinian language’ sound ..somehow..more impressive?

        or it could be shortened for clarity ‘Hebrew–the Palestinian language.’

      • James Canning
        March 14, 2013, 3:34 pm

        Jews could live in Palestine, and did so. Zionist contribution was creating a “Jewish” state controlled by Jews.

      • Light
        March 14, 2013, 4:17 pm

        I don’t think Israel’s significance for Jews was invented by the Zionist movement.

        No, it wasn’t but the significance changed. Prior to Zionism, Jerusalem was a pilgrimage destination or a place to study. It was significant to Jews in the same way it was significant to Christians and Muslims. Zionists elevated it to a new level and then claimed exclusive ownership of it and the rest of Palestine.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:37 pm

        Hebrew–the Palestinian language

        Is that inaccurate?

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:43 pm

        Image if native English speakers were to revive Latin with hardly more than a Bible as source material?

        Is this a good analogy? What about the Hebrew of the Mishna? Of Rashi? Of Maimonides?

      • Yitzgood
        March 15, 2013, 12:53 am

        No, it wasn’t but the significance changed. Prior to Zionism, Jerusalem was a pilgrimage destination or a place to study. It was significant to Jews in the same way it was significant to Christians and Muslims.

        Many of the 613 mitzvot are inoperative without a functioning Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem gave Muslims the idea for the significance of Mecca. It is the Muslim’s “first Qibla,” but it is the Jews’ only Qibla (just as we Jews have an Only Testament, so to speak, not an Old Testament.) I don’t know if Xians have an actual obligation to go on pilgrimmages to Jerusalem although it has been a destination for Xian pilgrimmages. I’d say you are wrong on all counts.

        Zionists elevated it to a new level and then claimed exclusive ownership of it and the rest of Palestine.

        Jerusalem is incredibly important in traditional Judaism. Look up the Karbon Pesach, Maaser Sheni, and Bikkurim, for instance. Zionism comes in various forms. (Odd thing to have to point out here.) Probably most Zionists don’t claim “exclusive ownership of it and the rest of Palestine.” I would say that anti-Zionist Haredim have a more emphatic sense of the importance of Jerusalem than most Zionists.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 15, 2013, 9:02 am

        Yes, it’s very inaccurate. First there is inaccuracy that is inherent in the fact that the Palestinians are in Arabic speaking people. They do not speak Hebrew, therefore, to say that this language is “Palestinian” is to make a false statement. Second, “Palestinian” is not a proper descriptive term when talking about languages. Hebrew could be considered a “Semitic “language, because that is the correct linguistic term. Third, modern Hebrew its Genesis in Europeans who invaded Palestine in order to steal the land and ethnically cleanse the native Palestinian population.

      • Yitzgood
        March 15, 2013, 4:50 pm

        What a myopic view.

        I said “uniquely”–or did you mean something else?

      • Yitzgood
        March 15, 2013, 4:59 pm

        How is the Jewish connection to Hebrew different from the Roman Catholic connection to Latin?

        If you go back to the Middle Ages, there is an analogy to be drawn between Hebrew before Israel and Latin for Europeans. Hebrew was the language of education, scholarship, literature, etc. for Jews up until the Enlightenment. Afterwards it remained so for Orthodox Jews up until the present and it is for Israelis now (besides being a spoken language.) Latin started to lose its old role in the Renaissance (although Oliver Cromwell still needed a Latin secretary–John Milton.) Latin then and Hebrew in every era had a very robust existence, even when not a widely spoken language.

      • RoHa
        March 15, 2013, 9:51 pm

        “What about the Hebrew of … Maimonides?”

        Maimonides was a Spanish Arab, so his version of Hebrew probably had Western Arabic influence.

      • RoHa
        March 15, 2013, 9:56 pm

        “I really don’t care what term one uses for Jewish people-hood.”

        So will you be willing to drop the term “nation”, and reject Norman F’s claim that Jewish nationalism is like other nationalisms?

      • Yitzgood
        March 16, 2013, 11:22 pm

        Maimonides was a Spanish Arab, so his version of Hebrew probably had Western Arabic influence.

        I imagine so. He wrote Guide for the Perplexed and other works in Arabic. What is your point? I have seen Israelis with no religious background start studying the Mishneh Torah. They do fairly well with the language although the halachic concepts take them some time to learn.

      • Yitzgood
        March 16, 2013, 11:26 pm

        So will you be willing to drop the term “nation”, and reject Norman F’s claim that Jewish nationalism is like other nationalisms?

        I try not to get hung up on terminology. The question is whether the Jewish sense of collective destiny is real? Apparently it is. Zionism succeeded to large extent. Some movements don’t accomplish anything and disappear.

      • Yitzgood
        March 16, 2013, 11:38 pm

        Second, “Palestinian” is not a proper descriptive term when talking about languages. Hebrew could be considered a “Semitic “language, because that is the correct linguistic term.

        I am talking about the geographical identification of languages. There was an Egyptian language called Coptic until the 17th century or so. Sanskrit was an Indian language. In that sense, Hebrew and Moabite are/were Palestinian.

      • RoHa
        March 17, 2013, 1:10 am

        “What is your point?”

        That the Hebrew of Maimonedes would probably have been a bit different from Ancient Hebrew.

      • RoHa
        March 17, 2013, 1:15 am

        “I try not to get hung up on terminology.”

        Ther terminology is important when important claims are made on the basis of a particular term.

        “The question is whether the Jewish sense of collective destiny is real”

        No, the question was whether Jewish nationalism was like other nationalisms.

        “Apparently it is.”

        So you are saying that, because of the collective destiny thing, Jews form an alien presence in our countries, and should not be allowed full citizenship, etc.? Isn’t that anti-Semitic?

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 2:49 am

        In all linguistic books you’ll find the same guy, born 1904, son of the amateur linguist Ben Yehuda. Looking at it a little closer, you’ll find that his elder sister, born 1902, was in fact before him. But the boy made it into all the Guinnesses… don’t you wonder why?

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 7:47 am

        Light – Thanks for correcting the birth date. The difference between Biblical and Modern Hebrew seems to be not the result of poor command but deliberate engineering.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:29 pm

        @RoHa – – Upper class Jews in England a century ago tended to stress the fact they were English who happened to be Jewish by religion. They saw the danger on the Continent, of Jews holding themselves to be Jews by race or nation.

      • Yitzgood
        March 17, 2013, 1:58 pm

        That the Hebrew of Maimonedes would probably have been a bit different from Ancient Hebrew.

        It is more than a bit different. That has to do with the influence of the Mishnah and later Torah literature than it does with the influence of Arabic although it seems impossible that Arabic should not have had some influence.

      • Yitzgood
        March 17, 2013, 2:08 pm

        So you are saying that, because of the collective destiny thing, Jews form an alien presence in our countries, and should not be allowed full citizenship, etc.? Isn’t that anti-Semitic?

        Can’t you just have a conversation without trying to score cheap points? Jews lived a separate existence throughout much of their history as a minority population in various countries. They often lived in societies where people were expected to conform where the majority religion was concerned and they practiced a different and not only that, an all-absorbing religion. Part of the impetus for political Zionism came from the fact that attempts to assimilate and lose that difference were often violently rebuffed.

      • Yitzgood
        March 17, 2013, 2:29 pm

        No, the question was whether Jewish nationalism was like other nationalisms.

        It seems obvious that it was in some respects and not in others. Mondoweissniks seem to divide the world into authentic and inauthentic people. Real nationalities and “artificial” ones or something like that. What do you expect a person named Chaim who came to this world via a Tel Aviv delivery room to believe about himself and his connection to the land of the Hebrew Prophets and Rabbi Akiva and the Arizal?

      • RoHa
        March 17, 2013, 10:43 pm

        “Upper class Jews in England a century ago tended to stress the fact they were English who happened to be Jewish by religion.”

        And, as a result of this deliberate integration, very soon Jews were in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They were High Court judges, academics, and businessmen. They showed that they were committed to the “collective destiny” of the the British people rather than that of the Jews.

        (And in Australia, as WW1 started, the Monash family were worried that they might be thought of as Germans rather than as Australians. They had no concern about being known to be Jews.)

      • RoHa
        March 17, 2013, 10:57 pm

        “Jews lived a separate existence throughout much of their history as a minority population in various countries.”

        As far as I can tell, this refusal of fellowship with the rest of the population was largely a matter of choice.

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 9:39 am

        @ Yitzgood
        ” Part of the impetus for political Zionism came from the fact that attempts to assimilate and lose that difference were often violently rebuffed.”

        And now, in America, we have Establishment Jewish leaders claiming the “silent genocide” of the Jewish people due to their own volunteering to marry non-Jews. They have supportive birthright programs geared to send young Jews to Israel to find romance and mate with Israeli Jews. Besides, there’s lots of historical evidence the ghetto door swung both ways, and could be locked from either side, right? There’s also historical documentation that early Zionism was intended to cut down on voluntary Jewish assimilation.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 11:01 am

        “I am talking about the geographical identification of languages.”

        No, you’re not. You’re trying to make a polical point. If you’re looking for a geographical identifier encompassing both ancient Hebrew and modern Israeli, then “Levantine” is the word you’re looking for, because acient Hebrew was spoken beyond Palestine, and modern Israeli is spoken only in occupied Palestine. “Palestinian” is inaccurate because it is a cultural signifier and Hebrew is alien to that culture. If you want to say that it is “a language native to the land of Palestine,” then that would be accurate.

        “There was an Egyptian language called Coptic until the 17th century or so. Sanskrit was an Indian language. In that sense, Hebrew and Moabite are/were Palestinian.”

        Wrong. Hebrew and Moabite were Canaanite languages.

      • Yitzgood
        March 18, 2013, 2:03 pm

        “Palestinian” is inaccurate because it is a cultural signifier and Hebrew is alien to that culture.

        You mean its signification is limited to Palestinian Arab culture? So we are not allowed to say “Palestinian Talmud” or “Palestinian Amora” anymore?

        Wrong. Hebrew and Moabite were Canaanite languages.

        The land was called Canaan at one point. I don’t see how that makes it wrong to call the country Palestine and say that it produced certain languages. Wikipedia calls the Mayans a “Mesoamerican civilization.”

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Citizen – – Most upper class Jews in England were anti-Zionist, a century ago. And they were fully assimilated into English society.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 4:05 pm

        “You mean its signification is limited to Palestinian Arab culture?”

        If I meant to say that, I would have said that.

        “So we are not allowed to say ‘Palestinian Talmud’ or ‘Palestinian Amora’ anymore?”

        You’re allowed to say whatever you want. That’s not the point at issue. The point at issue is why it is inaccurate to call Hebrew “a Palestinian language.”

        “The land was called Canaan at one point.”

        Yes, and these languages — Hebrew and Moabite — are known as Canaanite languages. You wanted to know why calling Hebrew a “Palestinian language” is inaccurate, and that’s one of the major reasons why. If you want to reject the accepted conventions of linguistics simply to make some cheap, stupid political point, that’s your problem. But at least have the character and intelligence to know that that’s what you’re doing and to own up to it. Otherwise, you look like an ignorant fool.

        “I don’t see how that makes it wrong to call the country Palestine and say that it produced certain languages.”

        I previously noted: “If you want to say that it is ‘a language native to the land of Palestine,’ then that would be accurate.”

        “Wikipedia calls the Mayans a ‘Mesoamerican civilization.'”

        Good for Wikipedia. How is this, in any way, relevant?

      • RoHa
        March 18, 2013, 8:21 pm

        I posted this on March 17, but it hasn’t got past the moderators yet. Perhaps repeating it will do the trick.

        “Upper class Jews in England a century ago tended to stress the fact they were English who happened to be Jewish by religion.”

        And, as a result of this deliberate integration, very soon Jews were in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They were High Court judges, academics, and businessmen. They showed that they were committed to the “collective destiny” of the the British people rather than that of the Jews.

        (And in Australia, as WW1 started, the Monash family were worried that they might be thought of as Germans rather than as Australians. They had no concern about being known to be Jews.)

      • Yitzgood
        March 19, 2013, 1:07 am

        If I meant to say that, I would have said that.

        You said exactly “‘Palestinian’ is inaccurate because it is a cultural signifier and Hebrew is alien to that culture.” But the culture Hebrew is “alien” to isn’t Palestinian Arab culture? Do explain.

        I previously noted: “If you want to say that it is ‘a language native to the land of Palestine,’ then that would be accurate.”

        But “Palestinian” can’t mean “native to the land of Palestine” or having its origin in the land of Palestine? Does this have something to do with those “accepted conventions of linguistics” you were talking about? (We aren’t talking about the features of Hebrew that lead it to be classified as a Semitic language.)

        Good for Wikipedia. How is this, in any way, relevant?

        The term “Mesoamerican” would not have meant anything to the Mayans–it simply associates them with a current term for the region they inhabited. You could say about my application of the phrase “Palestinian language” to Hebrew that it is seldom put that way. That doesn’t make it inaccurate.

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 1:11 am

        And now I have two posts saying the same thing in the same words. It’s a good thing that my posts are so brilliant, and so beautifully phrased, that they can bear immediate repetition.

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 1:19 am

        “Can’t you just have a conversation without trying to score cheap points?”

        Cheap or otherwise, the point is that, when you say Jews accept a collective destiny qua Jews, we have to ask what that implies for the rest of us. How does this affect (e.g.) the relationship between Jews and their countries of citizenship?

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 10:32 am

        “i thought they created lots of new hebrew words. do you mean all those new words were an adaptation of original hebrew words?”

        Huh? Shakespeare wrote in the English language. The language did not become another language because words have been invented since Shakespeare’s time.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 4:40 pm

        “The language did not become another language because words have been invented since Shakespeare’s time.”

        And if all those words had been added in a period of a few years, rather than a few centuries, then the argument could be made that the language has more in common with Esperanto or Klingon then French or German.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 5:07 pm

        Shakespeare wrote in the English language. The language did not become another language because words have been invented since Shakespeare’s time.

        how unhelpful hops. i wasn’t suggesting it “became another language'” i was trying to better understand what yitz was saying to sardel:

        …So Biblical Hebrew is strictly ritualistic and religion-related, while “Modern Hebrew” is a Zionist invention.

        …It was an adaptation of Hebrew.

        …i thought they created lots of new hebrew words. do you mean all those new words were an adaptation of original hebrew words?

        for example, lots of our words come from latin, and lots do not, some are just made up. it doesn’t mean it becomes another language. but the english language, or the way we speak it, has morphed over time. whereas it was my understanding lots of words were added to the original hebrew last century (in a very short amount of time). so those new words, were they mostly or primarily adaptations. that’s all i was asking, because i read somewhere lots of new words were made up. it was in a story about a man who recently died, who made up a lot of new words, as i recall.

      • Yitzgood
        March 19, 2013, 7:24 pm

        And if all those words had been added in a period of a few years, rather than a few centuries, then the argument could be made that the language has more in common with Esperanto or Klingon then French or German.

        Is the basic vocabulary and grammar did not change, but a large number of fairly specialized words were added, nobody would feel it was a different language. Let us consider someone having difficulty reading an article loaded with, say, medical jargon. And in that case we are probably talking about words that were coined in a short period of time. In some ways modern Hebrew is closer to its older forms than other language are. When a language is spoken for century after century it changes–naturally and organically, you would probably argue–but compare Old English to Modern English. Hebrew from the time of Beowulf is much more intelligible to an Israeli than Old English is to a contemporary English speaker who has not studied it.

      • pjdude
        March 24, 2013, 11:38 pm

        No they reserrecuted a dead language hebrew was liturgical language. diet and dress is pretty much a rip off of central and eastern european. there is nothing that makes them distinct outside of religion.

    • Shingo
      March 12, 2013, 9:02 am

      This argument–that “any state that ‘belongs’ to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality”–is an anti-Zionist commonplace which raises the obvious objection that it invalidates all national movements, including the Palestinian nationalist movement it ostensibly supports.

      Only if you accept that the expression of that nationalist movement must include the disfranchisement of fall other groups – like say Zionism. That’s what you lunatics refuse to accept – that your so called nationalist movement has come at the expense of the rights of another people.

      failing to acknowledge the question of whether France is also bad because not everybody in France is French in the ethnic sense although the civic sense of Frenchness does not seem to be entirely divorced from the ethnic one.

      Another blatantly stupid argument. France does not define itself or even claim to be the home of French ethnicity – it claims to be the home of the French population. Anyone can become a French citizen and claim to be part of the population that owns the state – not so in Israel.

      Frenchness might describe behavior or mannerisms, but as in terms of describing ethnicity, it does not exist.

      • Yitzgood
        March 12, 2013, 11:25 pm

        Frenchness might describe behavior or mannerisms, but as in terms of describing ethnicity, it does not exist.

        I’m not sure that I–“blatantly stupid” as I am–understand your point. Name some ethnicities that do exist and then perhaps I will understand better.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 11:48 am

        @ Yitzgood
        It’s simple, anybody who is a citizen of France has every right anyone else does who is a citizen, regardless of creed, color, ethnicity, race, particular types of comfort foods or dress, etc. This is not so in Israel, where all Israeli citizens are not equal before the laws, rules, internal policies of Israel.

        If you need further guidance look at any US citizen’s ID card, whether a passport or driver’s license, etc–there is no religious or ethnic or racial identity there. This is not so in Israel.

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:46 am

        @Yitzgood

        “I’m not sure that I–”blatantly stupid” as I am–understand your point”

        You’re not stupid. You simply can’t afford to understand and maintain your present stance. Your wholly holey moldy olde Hasbara would start to unravel

        ” Name some ethnicities that do exist and then perhaps I will understand better.”

        One cannot explain anything to people who refuse to understand.

    • eljay
      March 12, 2013, 10:36 am

      >> This argument–that “any state that ‘belongs’ to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality”–is an anti-Zionist commonplace which raises the obvious objection that it invalidates all national movements, including the Palestinian nationalist movement it ostensibly supports.

      A majority ethnicity – say, Jewish or Palestinian – may result in a country being “culturally Jewish” or “culturally Palestinian”, but no country has a right to set itself up as a supremacist state with more / different laws for one group of citizens.

      Palestine could and should be a country in which all citizens are equal, and to which one could migrate and acquire equal (Palestinian) citizenship. And I fully support the idea of special immigration status for anyone up to n generations removed from that region.

      Israel as a “Jewish State” is not and never can be a country of equality for all its Israeli citizens. It will always be a supremacist state primarily of and for Jews, even in the case of immigration where, instead of granting special immigration status to people up to n generations removed from that region, it:
      – grants special immigration status to Jews only, regardless how tenuous or non-existent their ties to the region might be; and
      – denies special immigration status to non-Jews even though they might be among the original refugees from the region.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 12:13 am

        So let’s propose an absolutely egalitarian state consisting of green-line Israel and the West Bank. That is the territory that Israel and the PA are in a position to negotiate about. Let us say they solve the question of immigration policy by severely limiting immigration and there is a quota-system that balances Jewish and Arab immigration without favoring either side. Now our new state– let’s call it Egalitaria–has a substantial Jewish majority and the only factor in maintaining or changing its demographic balance is the relative birthrate. Is that OK with you? No Palestinian right of return.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 12:29 am

        Is that OK with you? No Palestinian right of return.

        well, since it doesn’t sound like you’re concerned about getting the opinion of any palestinian refugees (the pa doesn’t represent them), is it ok with you if we eliminate the israelis from the decision making process?

      • Shingo
        March 14, 2013, 12:41 am

        Let us say they solve the question of immigration policy by severely limiting immigration and there is a quota-system that balances Jewish and Arab immigration without favoring either side.

        The fact is that refugees are not immigrants. You can’t exploit the fact that Israel became a state after they were expelled to argue that they are are no longer nationals.

        So no, it’s not OK.

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:21 am

        well, since it doesn’t sound like you’re concerned about getting the opinion of any palestinian refugees (the pa doesn’t represent them), is it ok with you if we eliminate the israelis from the decision making process?

        No–can you answer now? I proposed an egalitarian country ruled democratically by the actual inhabitants of Israel who are not subject to Hamas rule.

      • eljay
        March 14, 2013, 7:49 am

        >> Yitzgood @ March 14, 2013 at 12:13 am

        1. Refugees are not immigrants. Settle the refugee issue (return or payment in lieu).
        2. A preferential immigration right should be given to any individual orginially from that region and up to n generations of descendants.
        3. Beyond that, immigration should follow norms set by other countries.

        That said, I advocate for a two-state solution based on Partition borders:
        – Israel, the secular, democratic, egalitarian and “culturally Jewish” state of and for all Israelis, equally; and
        – Palestine, the secular, democratic, egalitarian and “culturally Palestinian” state of and for all Palestinians, equally.
        – With the refugee issue settled (return or payment in lieu), preferential immigration to each state would be granted to individuals originally from the respective regions and up to n generations of descendants.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 14, 2013, 9:25 am

        I proposed an egalitarian country ruled democratically by the actual inhabitants of Israel who are not subject to Hamas rule.

        oh. an egalitarian country not subject to Hamas rule. what about all those religious settler representatives in the knesset? what would you do about them? would they be allowed?

      • Light
        March 14, 2013, 11:45 am

        – let’s call it Egalitaria–has a substantial Jewish majority and the only factor in maintaining or changing its demographic balance is the relative birthrate.

        Let’s call it Gerrymandery because that is what you are proposing. Your solution is to draw lines to exclude people so one side has a majority and can vote the other side out of existence.

        Modern states not only have democratic elections but constitutions that protect minority rights and governments that comply with international law and agreements.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 11:53 am

        @ Yitzgood
        In your scenario, what about the Palestinian families who’ve been refugees since being driven out of Israel? Don’t they have a right to go home and live there at least as much as all the Jews born and bred in Brooklyn, for example, who are currently Israeli citizens? If not, why not?

      • Yitzgood
        March 14, 2013, 6:51 pm

        Anti-Zionists are always pretending that it all comes down to equality, but I can’t find any anti-Zionists who approve of merely abolishing every legal distinction between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

      • Yitzgood
        March 15, 2013, 5:02 pm

        In your scenario, what about the Palestinian families who’ve been refugees since being driven out of Israel?

        I don’t think descendants of refugees are refugees in the normal sense of the word. Otherwise, I thought I explained–in the scenario I proposed immigration would be very limited but not so as to favor Jews or Arabs.

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Yitzgood

        I don’t think descendants of refugees are refugees in the normal sense of the word.

        Does this apply to everyone or just Palestinian refugees?

      • Yitzgood
        March 19, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Does this apply to everyone or just Palestinian refugees?

        To everyone. That wasn’t obvious?

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 10:12 pm

        Just curious because this is the second time you’ve done it. Is there any reason you neglect the 1.7 million Palestinians living in Gaza?

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 10:15 pm

        It is the legal sense of the word that matters, what you think is irrelevant.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2013, 1:02 am

        what’s your definition of ‘israel’ when you say the actual inhabitants of Israel who are not subject to Hamas rule.

        the settlers are not inhabitans of israel. where are israel’s borders in your scenario? and who are you referring wrt who are not subject to Hamas rule. what citizens of israel are subject to hamas rule? and if hamas was who was ‘ruling’ gaza, why is it they do not get to control who exits and enters and who they can trade with? what’s your definition of ‘rule’?

        again what ‘actual’ inhabitants of israel are subject to hamas rule? any? why even say that? what is your meaning?

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:17 am

        @Yitzgood “I can’t find any anti-Zionists who approve of merely abolishing every legal distinction between Jews and Arabs in Israel”

        Tried LOOKING?

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:21 am

        @Yitzgood “I proposed an egalitarian country ruled democratically by the actual inhabitants of Israel who are not subject to Hamas rule”

        What a nonsense ziocaine addled statement.

        Israel’s inhabitants are ruled by Israel. No Israelis are ruled by Hamas.

        Let’s try you “.. proposed an egalitarian country ruled democratically by the actual inhabitants of Israel, actually in Israel”

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:39 am

        @Yitzgood “So let’s propose an absolutely egalitarian state consisting of green-line Israel and the West Bank. That is the territory that Israel and the PA are in a position to negotiate about”

        Er no. That’s the territory the Palestinians are in a position to negotiate about. Israel is required to get out (UNSC res 476).

        Furthermore, in negotiations the Palestinians have absolutely no legal obligation to forgo their legal rights according to International Law, the UN Charter or the relevant conventions Israel AGREED to uphold.

        Israel’s illegal ‘facts on the ground’ over the last 64 years ( Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948 link to wp.me ) have made it all but impossible for Israel to now adhere to the law without being sent bankrupt for decades attempting to pay the Palestinians BILLIONS of dollars compensation, while attempting to relocate hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens back in Israel.

        That’s why Israel insists on negotiations rather than adhering to the law. It has to plea bargain its way out of the sh*thole the Zionist Colonist enterprise has created.

        If Israel attempted to now adhere to the Law, it would very likely erupt into civil war in non-Israeli territories as it attempted to relocate all those disillusioned Israeli citizens now “outside the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com , thereby giving the other Regional Powers the right to intervene, as they did in 1948 by invading “Palestine” link to mfa.gov.il

        Meanwhile, the Law, UN Charter and relevant conventions all favour the Palestinians who only ask for their legal rights.

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:51 am

        @Yitzgood

        “I don’t think descendants of refugees are refugees in the normal sense of the word”

        If they’re stateless, they’re refugees. Israel refuses to end occupation, so independent statehood is impossible.

        Israel refuses to allow Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt or anywhere else to even enter the non-Israeli territories it now controls.

      • James Canning
        March 23, 2013, 2:25 pm

        A considerable number of Jews living in Palestine might choose to relocate to Israel.

      • James Canning
        March 23, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Important point, Talknic. Israel blocks immigration into the West Bank by Muslims or Christians, while promoting immigration into the West Bank of Jews. And, of course, Israel tries to encourage non-Jews to leave the West Bank.

      • Yitzgood
        March 24, 2013, 10:51 am

        If they’re stateless, they’re refugees.

        You’re preaching to the converted. Why would I consider Jordanians of Palestinian descent to be either refugees or stateless?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 24, 2013, 4:20 pm

        because they’re not jordanians.

      • Yitzgood
        March 24, 2013, 5:28 pm

        because they’re not jordanians

        I obviously think they are. You can defend your assertion if you want. Pesach is about to become all-consuming for me, so I am not likely to reply to anything addressed to me until after the holiday is all over. Chag kasher v’sameach to all who find that meaningful.

      • James Canning
        March 24, 2013, 7:01 pm

        The Queen of Jordan is a Jordanian of Palestinian desccent or origin.

      • James Canning
        March 27, 2013, 1:46 pm

        @Yitzgood – – Are you claiming that non-Jews who live in West Bank Palestine are “Jordanians”? When Jordan says they are not?

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 3:37 pm

        The problem with Zio-supremacism is that it seeks discrimination in every facet of Israeli society, not just immigration. If there were full equality on all other fronts, then preferential treatment for Jewish immigrants due to millenia-old, global anti-Semitism would be affirmative action, not supremacism.

        Of course, a post-occupation Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be free to have its own Law of Return.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 15, 2013, 5:13 pm

        “If there were full equality on all other fronts, then preferential treatment for Jewish immigrants due to millenia-old, global anti-Semitism would be affirmative action, not supremacism.”

        Not really. If you want to say that there should be preferential treatment in cases of actual antisemitism, that’s one thing. But without a showing of actual active discrimination, you don’t have affirmative action, you have an excuse to discriminate in favor of Jews.

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 10:52 am

        That is correct, and there plenty of examples of current-day anti-Semitism that goes beyond legitimate criticisms of Zionism (Holocaust denial, etc.).

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 2:23 pm

        “That is correct, and there plenty of examples of current-day anti-Semitism that goes beyond legitimate criticisms of Zionism (Holocaust denial, etc.).”

        Perhaps, but none of that presents any actual threat to the vast majority of the people who seek citizenship to israel under the discriminatory laws. That’s the point. The discrimination in favor of the Jews is in no way affirmative action; that’s simply an excuse.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 5:13 pm

        The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future. Germany in the 1920s certainly was looking good for Jews (apart from speeches and writings of a future Mufti ally), and we know how that turned out.

        By the way, are you Jewish, Woody? If not, then it’s not your call to make, to tell Jews they don’t have to worry about anti-Semitism, especially given some of the disparaging comments you’ve made about Jews on this blog.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 5:24 pm

        it’s not your call to make, to tell Jews they don’t have to worry about anti-Semitism,

        why do you think his point is directed at jews? we live in a society that privileges concern about anti semitism, certainly. this goes on while discriminatory racist press, advertisement and legislation against muslims flourishes.

        so we (non jews) have a right to discuss it and give our opinion. it sounds like you’re trying to shut off the discussion to non jews. it’s our tax dollars and our society too.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 5:38 pm

        “why do you think his point is directed at jews?”

        Well, his post was made in a response to me, and I am Jewish – duh!

        Expressing an opinion is one thing, but his arrogant tone suggested an imposition.

        Arrogant white folks tell African-Americans all the time that racism is a thing of the past and they should stop whining about discrimination, and African-American rightfully respond that those whites don’t know what it’s like to be black, so it’s not their call to make.

        Arrogant men say similar stuff about women, and arrogant Gentiles about Jews. Nothing new under the sun, I suppose.

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 5:43 pm

        Goldmarx,

        If there were full equality on all other fronts, then preferential treatment for Jewish immigrants due to millenia-old, global anti-Semitism would be affirmative action, not supremacism.

        Uh, no it wouldn’t. Affirmative action is supposed to correct for past discrimination of a minority. Making the Palestinians pay for other countries’ past discrimination is not just or fair.

        I’ll tell you what, a Tutsi refugee as part of an affirmative action program for past discrimination in Rwanda is going to be taking your house. That shouldn’t be a problem for you, will it? There are plenty of English speaking countries where you can move.

      • Cliff
        March 19, 2013, 5:47 pm

        goldmarx

        are you saying America is Germany in the 20s?

        if we’re living in a lull and Germany was in a lull before the Nazis, then shouldn’t you be outside in the cold screaming at the top of your lungs about the impending doom for American Jewry?

        hurry! we’re just in a lull!

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 5:54 pm

        Goldmarx,

        If not, then it’s not your call to make, to tell Jews they don’t have to worry about anti-Semitism

        You need to watch Defamation.

        link to amazon.com

      • Shingo
        March 19, 2013, 6:04 pm

        The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.

        Especially with Israel behaving like a rogue apartheid state.

        If not, then it’s not your call to make, to tell Jews they don’t have to worry about anti-Semitism..

        The fact most Jews refuse to live in Israel tells us that Israel is an anachronism.

      • Donald
        March 19, 2013, 6:09 pm

        “The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.”

        Goldmarx, do you think of anti-semitism as some sort of timeless ailment that will never go away? Because I don’t. I think it had historical roots, mostly in Christianity, but that old version of anti-semitism is dying out. Then there were the Nazis, who were insane in many ways, but only a few fringe lunatics still admire them. Nowadays the radical Islamists are anti-semitic for whatever set of reasons (I’m not an expert), but much (though not all) of the anti-semitism in the Arab world is probably linked to Israel’s behavior. Israel is seen as a last bastion of Western settler colonialism and it identifies itself as the Jewish state. The results are unfortunate, but predictable.

        But if you’re talking about the US (I’m not sure), what makes you think that the US is any more likely to turn anti-semitic than, say, to bring back the slave trade or Jim Crow? And which religion was bashed by major elements within the Republican Party during the last campaign season? Hint–it wasn’t Judaism or Christianity.

      • eljay
        March 19, 2013, 6:19 pm

        >> The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.

        The fact that there is a lull in homophobia now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future. Nevertheless, people of the homosexual persuasion who are citizens of countries around the world are not entitled to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Gay State”.

        Similarly, people of the Jewish faith who are citizens of countries around the world are not entitled to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 6:55 pm

        arrogant tone suggested an imposition.

        frankly, i am not hearing the ‘arrogance’ in either of these statements:

        If you want to say that there should be preferential treatment in cases of actual antisemitism, that’s one thing. But without a showing of actual active discrimination, you don’t have affirmative action, you have an excuse to discriminate in favor of Jews.

        none of that presents any actual threat to the vast majority of the people who seek citizenship to israel under the discriminatory laws. That’s the point. The discrimination in favor of the Jews is in no way affirmative action; that’s simply an excuse.

        the ‘millenia-old, global anti-Semitism’ is not a very compelling argument in a world where 1/2 the (adult) population of jews in the world are actively imprisoning and denying rights to millions of people while their zionist agents are writing congressional legislation for the global superpower directing foreign policy to push for more war on muslims after 10 years with over a millions dead..

        have you thought about what action you could take to lesson global anti semitism? or do you divorce it from israeli apartheid, executions, killing of youth, land theft and expansion etc? or do you blame that on millenia-old, global anti-Semitism too? just wondering…

        and what about this grotesque racism: link to mondoweiss.net

        is that also the fault of millenia-old, global anti-Semitism? in a nutshell, is there any responsibility for that anti-Semitism related to actions of ‘the jewish state’? or is it anti semitic to even suggest that?

        Arrogant men say similar stuff about women, and arrogant Gentiles about Jews.

        and what do arrogant jews say?

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 7:08 pm

        “The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.”

        You assume, by using “lull,” that it will flare up again. That’s silly.

        “Germany in the 1920s certainly was looking good for Jews”

        No, it wasn’t. Are you mad? The 1920s in Germany was a hot bed of antisemitism. The National Socialist movement did not rise out of nowhere.

        “By the way, are you Jewish, Woody?”

        Aren’t all Tanakas Jewish?

        “If not, then it’s not your call to make”

        I’m not saying it’s my call to make. I’m saying it’s my opinion. And it’s most certainly not your place to tell me what opinion I may or may not hold or express, especially given your aparently racist basis for determine whether one is entitled to hold an opinion on this subject. (It might be easier if you were to provide a summary of all of the opinions that Jews are permitted to hold and those that non-Jews are permitted to hold so that, instead of thinking, we call all just consult our respective lists of goldmarx approved opinions…)

        “to tell Jews they don’t have to worry about anti-Semitism”

        I don’t tell Jews they don’t have to worry about antisemitism. They can worry about whatever they want. I’m saying that by and large, most of the world’s Jews have nothing to fear from antisemitism as an objective fact. Whether they choose to accept that reality or fight it is out of my control.

        “especially given some of the disparaging comments you’ve made about Jews on this blog”

        I don’t make disparaging comments about Jews. I make disparaging comments about some zionists and about some israelis, based on their actions, their attitudes and their ideology. I’m sorry if you are blind to the difference and I would suggest you try thinking a bit harder next time.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 7:19 pm

        “Expressing an opinion is one thing, but his arrogant tone suggested an imposition.”

        Well, far be it from me to be arrogant in expressing my own opinion. After all, it’s only my opinion. What the hell can I know about it? What are you looking for, that before I let you know what I think, I get your leave, first?? Should I always couch it terms of, “Gee, goldmarx, if it’s okay with you, can I please believe this, that or the other thing??? Please?” Is that what you’re looking for?

      • Keith
        March 19, 2013, 7:50 pm

        GOLDMARX- “The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future.”

        Why would anti-Semitism “flare up in the near future?” Is it because Gentiles are intrinsically irrational Jew haters? Is it true that “The world hates the Jews. The world always has and will continue to do so.” (David Mamet) ? Why is that? What is wrong with the Goyim anyway? Not quite human, huh? If only the Jews could count on receiving the love and affection reserved for Arabs, Blacks, Native Americans, etc, then, perhaps you could worry less about anti-Semitism, cowering in fear in Park Avenue ghettos. Or, you could drop the eternal victim-hood charade and get a life, perhaps even mingle with your fellow humans who aren’t Jewish. Or do you find being a loyal member of the tribe particularly rewarding?

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 8:03 pm

        And when did I post that I support an “oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist Jewish State?

        Straw man, much?

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 8:14 pm

        Given the economic crises that have been racking the US since the late 200o’s, I would say that Weimar analogies are quite reasonable. And given the anti-Semitic proclivities of Christian Zionism, its support for Israel based on the notion that it will lead to Armageddon that will kill all the Jews (except 144,000 who accept Christ), my fears, as well as those of my friends in the Occupy Judaism branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are quite justified.

        Of course, at least in the Weimar republic, you had a strong Left. In the US, you don’t even have that.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 8:21 pm

        “in a nutshell, is there any responsibility for that anti-Semitism related to actions of ‘the jewish state’? or is it anti semitic to even suggest that?”

        Is there any responsibility for misogyny related to the actions of feminist organizations? Or is it even sexist to suggest that?

        Is there any responsibility for racism related to the actions of civil rights organizations or black heads of state? Or is it even racist to suggest that?

        Is there any responsibility for homophobia related to the actions of gay rights organizations? Or is it even homophobic to suggest that?

        Questions, questions…

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 8:42 pm

        “where 1/2 the population of jews in the world are actively imprisoning and denying rights to millions of people?”

        Really, Annie? ALL of Israel’s civilian Jewish population is ACTIVELY imprisoning and denying rights to the Palestinians? Israeli Jewish babies included?
        It is one thing to say that they are the passive beneficiaries of such human rights violations, just as I, a white man, am the passive beneficiary of institutionalized racism in the USA. But this???

        As far as lessening global anti-Semitism, I look at the need to lessen the need for scapegoating in general, so I use my free time in social justice groups with the long-term goal of establishing a democratic socialist economy globally.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 9:00 pm

        Is there any responsibility for misogyny related to the actions of feminist organizations? Or is it even sexist to suggest that?

        well, if millions of feminists were kidnapping, torturing and imprisoning the children of families with stay at home mom’s, with the backing of the government, after a few decades i might be pretty weary of socializing with feminists i didn’t know personally. but that’s just me.

        Is there any responsibility for racism related to the actions of civil rights organizations or black heads of state? Or is it even racist to suggest that?

        well, if a so called civil rights organization (with an orwellian name like ‘anti-defamation group’) empowered or otherwise supported and advocated spying and persecution of a group of people, like say muslims, well then i would accuse them of racism, yes.

        Is there any responsibility for homophobia related to the actions of gay rights organizations? Or is it even homophobic to suggest that?

        well, if all or most gay rights organizations were demanding rights for themselves (ie: to marry) while at the same time supporting and empowering a system that made it illegal for others to marry (like say people of different races or religions) then it might not be unusual for people to notice that hypocrisy and construe gays were two faced. but that’s not really the case.

        i don’t think, under the examples i have provided, it would be misogynistic, racist or homophobic to suggest the actions of those groups were perpetuating hatred against themselves. but luckily the vast majority of feminists, civil rights groups, and gay people are not actively in the process denying millions of people their rights, or managing a horrible apartheid government and military that effectively imprisons peoples lives for the purpose of stealing their resources and taking over their land, unlike the ‘jewish’ state, which is doing that.

        you’ve got a concentration of jewry actively participating in a political system (zionism) that kills tortures and imprisons. that’s a fairly compelling motivator for generating hatred.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 9:09 pm

        you’re right about the babies goldmarx, other than that, my point stands. i added “(adult)” for clarity.

        ALL of Israel’s civilian Jewish population is ACTIVELY imprisoning and denying rights to the Palestinians?

        hmm, i didn’t actually say ‘all of Israel’s civilian Jewish population’, i am sure there are those who do not. and for everyone of them there is a person in the diaspora to take their place.

        i think inevitably there will be people who associate the actions of the ‘jewish’ state, with jews. i guess that’s because people associate jewish with jews. it’s probably more than a linguistic thing, sort of mind association.

        albeit, i don’t think what’s going on in israel is going on because they are jewish, i think any group of people could be brainwashed into committing and empowering horrendous humane rights atrocities under the right tutelage.

      • American
        March 19, 2013, 9:09 pm

        goldmarx says:

        The fact that there is a lull in anti-Semitism now doesn’t mean it can’t flare up again in the near future. Germany in the 1920s certainly was looking good for Jews (apart from speeches and writings of a future Mufti ally), and we know how that turned out.>>>>

        Did things look good for Jews in Germany in the 1920’s? Maybe not:

        link to books.google.com

        Zionism in Germany 1897-1933: The Shaping of a Jewish Identity by Stephen M. Poppel.

        ”Yet however vehemently German Zionists attacked the “assimilationists” they showed little enthusiasm for migration to Palestine.
        * Rather, they articulated a minority nationalism and mentally reconstructed Germany as a pluralistic state in which Jewish and German nationalism would co-exist. *
        This proved to be a delusion but in the 1900s it was not so demented.”

        And, right next door in Poland this was happening:

        1926/dp/0300024487/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363731831&sr=8-1&keywords=zionism+in+poland
        Zionism in Poland: The Formative years, 1915-1926
        Ezra Mendelsohn

        Zionism began among the Jews in Russian-occupied eastern Poland. Mendelsohn touches on the Litwak’s (Litvaks): “The Litvaks, for example, were disliked by the `Polish’ Jews [of Congress Poland] for being too secular, too revolutionary, and too pro-Russian (the Poles disliked them for similar reasons…” (p. 22). Unlike other Jewish authors who revile Dmowski for having stood up to the Jews, the author understands him: “The clash between the Russification policies of the Russian regime and Polish nationalism, while occasionally making possible Jewish-Polish alliances against the tsar, often had the effect of exacerbating Polish-Jewish relations. Those relations reached a new low in 1912, when Jewish support for a Polish socialist candidate to the Russian state Duma (parliament) resulted in an anti-Jewish boycott sponsored by the National Democrat party, which was particularly strong in this region.” (p. 20).

        Ironically, some Jewish nationalists had found inspiration in Polish nationalism. (pp. 345-346). Instead of identification with the Polish cause, however, Jews felt inspired to follow a different road–one that would end up hurting both Poles and Jews.

        Besides being pro-Russian, Jews tended variously to be pro-Lithuanian (p. 104), pro-German (107), and somewhat pro-Ukrainian. (p. 97). Even neutrality implied contempt towards Polish national aspirations, as is obvious from the following: “…*Jews are a separate nationality that has no interest in interfering with the quarrels of other nationalities.”* (p. 100).

        Endek suspicions of “international Jewry” had a rational basis: “…the experience of 1918-19, that the Jews had become an international factor of considerable significance. The very fact that Reich, Then, and other Polish Zionists had appeared in Paris and had been granted a hearing by the representatives of the Great Powers…” (p. 107).

        One professed reason Jews gave for not supporting a resurrected Poland was a fear of pogroms. (p. 41). Ironically, by long failing to support Poland, they helped make their fear a self-fulfilling prophecy. (p. 89).

        “Having just concluded a bloody struggle for national independence, the Poles could not have been expected to be pleased with the presence on their soil of three million mostly acculturated Jews, many of whom had been sympathetic to Poland’s enemies….Objective reasons for disliking the Jews, who were so numerous, so influential, and so clearly non-Polish, were not lacking, and the chauvinistic atmosphere that pervaded the country made things worse.” (p. 12).

        Polish discriminatory actions against Jews, in the new Polish state, were only tangentially a cause of Jewish poverty. Clearly, Jewish poverty had mainly been inherited from the policies of Poland’s foreign rulers, as was Polish poverty. (pp. 8-9). Indeed, the standard of living among the Jews in the towns and cities was undoubtedly higher than that of the typical Polish peasant.” (p. 9). But the elimination of the Jewish middleman, caused by the emergence of Polish peasant cooperatives, was also a major contributor to Jewish poverty. (p. 10).

        ‘Under Zionism, Poland’s Judaism thus became politicized in pressing demands for the enshrinement of Jewish particularism (as in the so-called Minorities Treaty)–the demands including such manifestations as separate Jewish courts, a Jewish police force, Jewish self-government (kehile, or kehilas) extended to nonreligious matters, and Polish-funded separate Yiddish-language Jewish schools. (pp. 14-15, 107, 216).

        The Zydokomuna (Bolshevize Judaism) further divided Poles and Jews. It went much, much deeper than CP membership. The anti-Zionist, Yiddishist Bund was Marxist. (p. 24). Among Zionist organizations, the Poale Zion was Marxist (p. 31, 55, 140), increasingly flirting with outright Communism (p. 136), openly backing the USSR in the 1920 Polish-Soviet War (p. 148), and adopting a Communist Palestinian position. (p. 156, 202). Even after the split within this organization over Communism, in which the Poale Zion Left remained unmistakably pro-Communist (p. 322), the so-called Poale Zion Right was itself Marxist. (p. 156). The Hashomer Hatzair (Hashomer Hatzair), a Scouting-like Zionist organization modeled after the Shomer in Palestine, was God-rejecting secularist (p. 83) and eventually Marxist. (p. 85). In time, the Shomer became Palestinian Marxist. (p. 292-294). Finally, Yitzhak (Yitzhaky) Nissenbaum quit the general Zionist Federation, in part because, as he wrote them in 1927, “`the Russian Revolution greatly influenced your youths…'” (p. 172).

        ‘Later, evidently recounting the events of 1912, some Zionists professed loyalty to Poland, if only for tactical motives, to the dismay of other Jews. (p. 50-on; 300-on). Orthodox Jews (e. g., Agudas Yisroel) and, to a lesser extent, a religious branch of Zionism (Mizrachi), both already opposed to the secular emphasis of conventional Zionism, suggested that Polish Jews should consider themselves a religion, and not a separate culture or nationality. (p. 15, pp. 56-57). (This essentially concurred with the End position).

        And here are picture of the Zionist all dressed in their zionist uniforms marching around Poland:

        link to museumoffamilyhistory.com

        So, what is my point in this bit of pre holocaust Jewish history and attitudes? It’s not to say anti semitism doesn’t exist and will never reappear again. It’s to say it might. Now, one will to say how dare I insinuate that anything Jews did or their political activities and attitudes caused anti semitism, right? But that is what I am saying, more specifically, that there were and still are Jewish groups within “The” Jewish Group that act in political ways that arouse others against them —and these incidents come about by just what is described above:

        1) Some Jewish groups idea in Germany that Germany be a pluralistic nation–that Germany let them maintain their own ‘separate nation’ for Jews within Germany.
        2) Just as some Jewish groups did in Poland in pushing for separate Jewish courts, a Jewish police force, Jewish self-government extended to nonreligious matters, and Polish-funded separate Yiddish-language Jewish

        About now one is going to say none of that justified the holocaust, …Well no it didn’t. And one is going to say because some Jewish groups provoked the Polish or German non Jewish citizens with their ideas of running their own country within a country is still no excuse for those citizen hating All Jews—-Well.. no it wasn’t a good reason.
        BUT….that is what happens in man’s world—–birds of a feather who flock together will most often be lumped together. Don’t ask me why but that’s what happens……probably because it easier for authorities or opposing groups who object to a ”self defined group’s” causes to lump them together then going to the trouble of separating them out.
        My whole point to this is to say many, many people are very much disliking what several Jewish groups ‘Are Doing’….they would dislike them just as much if they were Baptist or Brazilian so Zios shouldn’t flatter themselves that disliking their group for what they are doing makes them special.
        So yes, one should worry about ‘the resentment” arising, because of what zionist and Israel are doing, turning into undifferentiated anti semitism toward the whole.
        So far the world has been very good about distinguishing Zionist and Israel from Jews——but the envelope is being pushed.
        The fact is the Jews have a age old problem in their ranks –Zionism, the Jewish Nation concept- operating within another or other nations. The Jews need to sort this problem out (we do see many trying)— because if others are ever forced by some event to do it it’s probably not going to be done with surgical precision that doesn’t affect the innocent ones in some way.
        And this is not meant to be scary as in another ‘holocaust of Jews”…it is meant for zionist and liberal zionist, they better wake up and drop the myths, drop the bullshit, drop the pretense of always innocents victims, and drop the belief in this fake peoplehood and world wide nation of Jews instead of Jewish religion, drop their entitlement demand , drop their guilt tripping the universe…and look at *What They Are Doing* to turn people against them and the “Jewish ’cause”.

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 10:03 pm

        “Or is it even sexist”/racist/homophobic “to suggest that?”

        It matters not a jot whether the suggestion is anti-Semitic, sexist, racist, homophobic, or un-Australian. What matters is whether or not the suggestion is true.

      • tree
        March 19, 2013, 10:51 pm

        More questions for goldmarx…

        Is there any responsibility for hatred towards the US related to the US’s violent and murderous actions abroad?

        Is there any responsibility for Irish hatred towards the British related to Britain’s oppression of Ireland?

        Was there any responsibility for hatred towards Nazi Germany’s citizens related to Nazi atrocities?

        Is there any responsibility for hatred towards Muslims related to the actions of a small group of Islamic terrorists?

        And the big one, hophmi’s favorite, is there any responsibility for Jewish hatred aimed at European Christians related to the actions of European Christians over the centuries?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 11:46 pm

        you’re so smart tree.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 12:37 am

        Zionism is not age-old – it was founded in 1897.

        It’s interesting that you go on and on, but end up confirming that German Jews in the 1920s did not go for Zionism precisely because they felt they had it good in the Weimar Republic – no pogroms, no overt instituional discrimination (you know, just like the USA now)

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 12:47 am

        I don’t see bigotry against Americans as on the rise – I see antagonism toward the US government.

        Same with the Irish vis-a-vis the British.

        Hatred toward the citizens of Nazi Germany – that’s a bit different, because there are questions about to the extent they knew what was happening from 1933-1945 and the extent of collaboration with Hitler.

        Most Americans make the distinction between Muslims and the 9/11 terrorists . Heck, even George Bush, of all people, got that right.

        And I’ll let Hophmi deal with his ‘favorite’ – why would I rain on his parade?

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 1:13 am

        German Jews in the 1920s were quite good at mingling with non-Jewish Germans. They weren’t Zionists…and that turned out to be such a Paradise.
        They ‘got a life’, until they lost theirs, quite prematurely.

        Just because David Mamet is a fool doesn’t mean the extreme opposite of his ideas, as proposed by you, is any better.

      • Cliff
        March 20, 2013, 1:14 am

        Goldmarx, Israeli Jews serve in the army mandatorily.

        There is no large anti-occupation movement of Israeli Jews.

        There is no Israeli Left.

        You just said there is no American Left and America is the Weimar Republic.

        There is much more proof that Israel is as monolothic as your America rather than America being monolothic.

      • Cliff
        March 20, 2013, 1:16 am

        Goldmarx, don’t be an idiot and take it literally to mean all Jews in Israel.

        It means a majority. An impressionable majority.

        Or maybe you read into all things literally and not just when it serves your political agenda so that you may be indignant as a rebuttal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 8:37 am

        “Given the economic crises that have been racking the US since the late 200o’s, I would say that Weimar analogies are quite reasonable.”

        No, it’s quite stupid. They’re two different societies at two different times and the “economic crises” in the few years is almost literally nothing like those that hit Germany. It’s another example of you using your quite limited education to put a patina on the crap that is your thoughts, fears and bigotries.

        “And given the anti-Semitic proclivities of Christian Zionism, its support for Israel based on the notion that it will lead to Armageddon that will kill all the Jews (except 144,000 who accept Christ),”

        This is, again, stupid. The support which the Christian Zionists have has nothing to do with their particular eschatology. Why would it? They believe that it is going to happen no matter what they do. Rather, they support Israel for a number of reasons: (1) they read Genesis 12:1-3 and similar verses as mandating that Christians bless israel. It’s no coincidence that support for israel is highest among Christians who are biblilcal literalists and fundamentalists. (2) they are politically right wing and see the apartheid Spartan state as being a kin to their own outlooks on poltics. (3) they are anti-Muslim bigots and see israel as the “front line” of what they see as the scary Muslims who are coming for their religion and white women.

      • Keith
        March 20, 2013, 11:36 am

        GOLDMARX- “Given the economic crises that have been racking the US since the late 200o’s, I would say that Weimar analogies are quite reasonable.”

        This comment says volumes about your Judeo-centric myopia. The respective demographics are not even remotely comparable, there are plenty of minorities here to pick on other than Jews, who, I might add, have never experienced the type of racism heaped upon American Blacks. Is the Southern security fence designed to keep out the Jews? Is the uptick in anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism anti-Semitic? Is the prison system disproportionately filled with Jews? Is the media controlled by anti-Semites?

        I could go on, but why bother? I doubt that you are truly fearful of a new Holocaust, obsessing about anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, the psychological glue binding the tribe together. Kinda fun to be an self-righteous anti-Gentile chauvinist and get away with it, your own little exploitation of the Holocaust.

        “The Shoah did not determine the inner drive and logic of Zionism, but it had the highly important result of allowing this to be shown outwardly in a benign light that drew in vast degrees of support for what had hitherto been considered a marginal and dubious idea. Both the Jewish community and world opinion were greatly affected….The Shoah, in other words, allowed the perception of a highly evolved Zionist aggression, which dated before the war, to become eclipsed, turned around, and seen as defensive and therefore necessary.” (p69, “Overcoming Zionism,” Joel Kovel, 2007)

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 1:51 pm

        I am the son of Holocaust survivors, so thinking about America’s Holocaust potential is something we all do, regardless of Zionism.

        Have I ever engaged in personal attacks against you, Keith? If not, then what does that say about you that you do so now?

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 1:53 pm

        “This comment says volumes about your Judeo-centric myopia.”

        Why does talking about Weimar illustrate Judeocentrism?

        “The respective demographics are not even remotely comparable, there are plenty of minorities here to pick on other than Jews, who, I might add, have never experienced the type of racism heaped upon American Blacks.”

        There you go again. Did anyone claim Jews had suffered as much as American Blacks?

        Jews can enjoy life in America. Jews can be thankful for life in America. Jews can be great Americans. But Jews have an historical memory and know that even societies they never would have expected to turn on them did turn on them, in the worst way. So there is no way most of us cannot think about it in some respect, even in America, and that’s why telling us how well we’re doing is completely beside the point. We’ve done well before. You’re essentially telling us that because we never had it so good, we should not worry. It doesn’t work that way.

        “I doubt that you are truly fearful of a new Holocaust, obsessing about anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, the psychological glue binding the tribe together. ”

        And another thing. This is yet another time where YOU are pulling out the Holocaust card, as if the measure of Jewish security is not fearing another Holocaust. That’s ridiculous. It’s like telling Black people to stop complaining because they don’t have to fear re-enslavement.

        “Kinda fun to be an self-righteous anti-Gentile chauvinist and get away with it, your own little exploitation of the Holocaust.”

        Oh, please. No one is an “anti-Gentile chauvinist.” Some of my best friends are gentile;-)

        “The Shoah did not determine the inner drive and logic of Zionism, but it had the highly important result of allowing this to be shown outwardly in a benign light that drew in vast degrees of support for what had hitherto been considered a marginal and dubious idea.”

        Joel Kovel is entitled to his anti-Zionist opinion. It’s a silly one. Though Zionism was a minority opinion before the war, it had plenty of adherents, and those who opposed it most strongly were generally rich Jews with high social positions who didn’t want to rock the boat, the sha shtil set.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 2:53 pm

        Goldmarx – – Since half of American Jews marry or mate with non-Jews, do you really worry about the strength of the position of Jews in America?

      • Keith
        March 20, 2013, 3:10 pm

        GOLDMARX- “Have I ever engaged in personal attacks against you, Keith?”

        Every time you imply that Gentiles are intrinsically irrational Jew haters and murders you engage in an affront to all Gentiles. Jewish anti-Gentile chauvinism is the mirror image of anti-Semitism, yet, while you continue to bemoan perceived anti-Semitism, you casually engage in anti-Gentile chauvinism as if it was some sort of birthright entitlement accruing to the “son of Holocaust survivors.” Do you truly believe that you are in greater danger from a racist backlash than Arabs, Blacks, or Latino immigrants? If so, why? And why should your claim to victimhood be greater than these ethnic groups I have mentioned, all of which you lump together under the label of Goyim? Norman Finkelstein is also the son of Holocaust survivors, but it hasn’t stunted his sense of perspective, nor his concern for universal justice.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 6:07 pm

        According to sociologist Steven Martin Cohen (and Forward editor JJ Goldberg), the intermarriage rate was exaggerated by fundraisers for established Jewish organizations to scare donors into giving even more. It’s more like 38%, not the 52% officially given.

        Intermarriage is a problem only if people are marrying for the wrong reasons (then again, that applies to any marriage). In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews. They cling to certain derogatory stereotypes – the women are JAPs, the men are Abe Foxman, etc. The main source for these stereotypes is the Hollywood film industry, whose creative sector is predominantly Jewish and intermarried – a painful irony.

        I worry less about the position of American Jewry nowadays and more about the 99% in general. Social justice for them will avert any major persecution for minorities here.

        Thanks for asking!

      • Donald
        March 20, 2013, 6:27 pm

        “Given the economic crises that have been racking the US since the late 200o’s, I would say that Weimar analogies are quite reasonable. And given the anti-Semitic proclivities of Christian Zionism, its support for Israel based on the notion that it will lead to Armageddon that will kill all the Jews (except 144,000 who accept Christ), my fears, as well as those of my friends in the Occupy Judaism branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are quite justified.”

        Goldmarx, I grew up around people who were Christian Zionists–in fact, I was one of those people. I read the Late Great Planet Earth and believed it back in the 70’s–that was the non-fictional (loosely speaking) version of what the Left Behind series represents now. And I don’t think you understand the psychology of the average evangelical/fundie who might think the world is going to end. Yes, you’re going to Hell if you don’t accept Christ, is the thinking, but no, that’s in no way whatsoever a license to hate or hurt Jews. Quite the opposite. I’ll tell you another book that was very popular with my crowd back then–Corrie ten Boom’s “The Hiding Place”. It’s a true story told by a woman whose fundamentalist family hid Jews during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. See, the people who read and loved that book are the people you’re afraid might become the next Nazis. I just looked it up on Amazon. It’s got 553 reviews, all of them 4 or 5 stars.

        link

        Here’s wikipedia’s plot summary. Remember it’s all true (or anyway, we readers thought so. I don’t know if any historian has tried to verify it.)

        link

        Note that Corrie and her sister were sent to a concentration camp for their attempts to save Jews, and her sister died. Again, this was a pretty darn popular book in my crowd.

        This may not make sense to you–that people who think unconverted Jews are going to Hell also believe that they had a God-given duty to save the lives of Jews, but such is life.

        Not that there weren’t instances of anti-semitic thinking among evangelicals, but it was pretty much run-of-the-mill bigotry that you’d find among almost any group about some other group they don’t really know much about from firsthand experience. For instance, the sort of shallow bigotry that people often feel towards evangelicals.

        I don’t usually defend the fundies much–usually I criticize them. On the subject we discuss here, it’s Christian fundies who are such stalwart fans of Israel’s worst behavior. I’ve got a good friend who thinks there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and blames the whole conflict on Islamic extremism. He’s a fundie. But he’s no more likely to be a Nazi hunting down Jews than any random person you’d pick off the street. If anything, he’s less likely. But if I were a Muslim, I would not feel that my civil liberties were safe if he were in charge.

        My point being that bigotry and lack of understanding come in many forms–something that liberals often have great difficulty realizing applies to them as much as anyone.

      • Cliff
        March 20, 2013, 6:32 pm

        goldmark says:

        “In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews.”

        Really? Is there some sociological study that comes to that conclusion?

        Is this empirically observable?

        Where did you come up with this pseudo-intellectual crap?

      • Keith
        March 20, 2013, 7:09 pm

        GOLDMARX- “I worry less about the position of American Jewry nowadays and more about the 99% in general. Social justice for them will avert any major persecution for minorities here.”

        Something we agree upon. Unfortunately, as we approach the culmination of neoliberal globalization, the conditions of life for the 99% are likely to deteriorate significantly and rapidly. Massive civil unrest is anticipated and planned for, that is what the militarization of domestic society is all about. Forget about ethnicity, it is the poorer elements of the 99% which will bear the brunt, many of our cities already occupied zones, Detroit a harbinger of things to come.
        link to blackagendareport.com

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 8:11 pm

        In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews. They cling to certain derogatory stereotypes – the women are JAPs, the men are Abe Foxman, etc. The main source for these stereotypes is the Hollywood film industry, whose creative sector is predominantly Jewish and intermarried – a painful irony.

        I dunno, you seem to be a pretty good source of stereotypes yourself. Look at the comment that you just authored and own-up to it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 9:40 pm

        “In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews.”

        Wow, goldmock, you really are deranged.

      • RoHa
        March 20, 2013, 9:58 pm

        “In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews. They cling to certain derogatory stereotypes – the women are JAPs, the men are Abe Foxman, etc. The main source for these stereotypes is the Hollywood film industry,”

        So lots of US Jews say to themselves “God, Jews are repulsive. I don’t want to marry into that lot.”

        And why do they think Jews are repulsive? It is because they only know about Jews from Hollywood films? Or is it because their own families are repulsive?

        Do, please, give us more insights into this fascinating bit of sociology.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:17 pm

        RoHa, sometimes i get the feeling we’re just laboratories for strange theories.

      • Keith
        March 20, 2013, 11:45 pm

        ANNIE- “…sometimes i get the feeling we’re just laboratories for strange theories.”

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 11:28 am

        Annie: Gee, maybe I’d tell you, but it would help if you first addressed my point about the other arrogant groupings I mentioned, since so you helpfully italicized it.

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 12:22 pm

        @ goldmarx
        So, is the converse also true, that Gentiles marry Jews to escape intimacy with other Gentiles, and this because they cling to derogatory stereotypes about Gentiles, they’re immoral, dumb, easily duped, the women whores, the men dim donkeys, and both without any sense of taste, style, or decorum? If not, why not?

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:26 pm

        Roha: The sociologists that I cited did not just crunch numbers. Interviews are periodically done that have shown that many US Jewish men think that Jewish women are materialistic and unsexy and will not marry one. Similarly, many Jewish women have equally unattractive views of Jewish men.

        Jewish feminists have written about this as well. Lilith magazine, the writings of Aviva Cantor and Evelyn Torton Beck, and others from that community. The influence of Hollywood is a key theme in several of these writings

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:31 pm

        Woody: Wow, such a convincing, classy, well-documented rebuttal. I quiver at the possibility of facing off against you on any public podium.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:34 pm

        Hostage: Own up to what? What stereotypes am I the source of?

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:40 pm

        Keith: You could be right about the future. On the other hand, nothing succeeds like success, and the ruling class has these old habits that are hard to break because it’s worked well for them in the past, like ethnic scapegoating as part of a divide-and-conquer strategy. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with keeping that in mind.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:49 pm

        Thanks for your post, Donald.

        I was thinking of the “Left Behind’ tendency, which is huge, given its success in the literary marketplace. Its endorsement of a fiery apocalypse in which all the Jews, for example, except 144,000, need to die for the Rapture to occur -well how am I, a Jew and son of Holocaust survivor supposed to look at that except the LBers want to finish Hitler’s job?

        I take their words quite literally – given recent history, I think it’s naive for anyone to do otherwise.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 1:06 pm

        Citizen: I don’t know about the converse – I have not seen any surveys or interviews with Gentile spouses.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 21, 2013, 1:31 pm

        “Wow, such a convincing, classy, well-documented rebuttal. I quiver at the possibility of facing off against you on any public podium.”

        LMAO. Given the fact that you don’t know the basic facts about who controlled what in Eastern Europe in the 1800s and the fact that you were ignorant of basic facts of this conflict, such as the “price tag” terrorism, I’m pretty sure that I would have nothign to worry about.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 1:38 pm

        Goldmarx – – The number of people of Jewish descent in England has increased substantially over the past fifty years, but the number of people who identify themselves as “Jews” has declined.
        What percentage of the so-called “ruling class” in the US is either Jewish or of Jewish descent, at least in part? Rather a lot, I should think.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 1:50 pm

        “In the case of US Jews, many intermarry not out of love for their Gentile spouses but because they want to escape from the possibility of intimacy with other Jews. They cling to certain derogatory stereotypes – the women are JAPs, the men are Abe Foxman, etc. The main source for these stereotypes is the Hollywood film industry”

        This is silly nonsense. Many Jews assimilate because they are poorly educated in their faith and because it’s just easier. People who are taught to care little for their faith tend to care little for perpetuating it, though this is far from uniform even among intermarried couples. It has nothing to do with stereotypes Jews have of other Jews. The push for Jews to marry within the faith is fairly typical of minority ethnic and racial communities. Similar attitudes certainly exist in the African-American community, in the Muslim community, and in many other small communities.

        There seems to be a growing acceptance of intermarriage within the organized Jewish world, and a concurrent acceptance amongst intermarried couples that some Jewish traditions are worth preserving, which is a good thing. My belief has always been that America works best when people preserve their traditions and assimilate into American culture at the same time. Otherwise, you don’t have a rich tapestry; you have a monotony.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 2:31 pm

        Goldmarx – – Surely the position of Jews in any country is stronger if the intermarriage of Jews with non-Jews is frequent rather than rare. High rate of intermarriage should be cause for congratulations all round.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 3:25 pm

        Woody Tanaka: And why should we believe anything you have to say? Mostly, you fling personal insults when you disagree.

        “Price tag” attacks are not a fundamental part of the conflict – they were not mentioned in “Five Broken Cameras”, for example, nor have I seen one mention in an al-Jazeera broadcast, which I watch regularly. Oh, I suppose I might have missed it on a broadcast, but it is at best a slight new wrinkle in an ongoing conflict.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 3:30 pm

        Canning: Let’s not romanticize intermarriage – I hate to sound like a broken record, but it didn’t deter the Holocaust, and there was lots of it in Europe wherever Jews chose to assimilate.

        Lots of the American intermarriages of the type I described wind up in divorce, because the Gentile spouses quite sensibly realize, after the initial romantic haze has vanished, that they weren’t loved for what they are, but for what they are not. Cause for congratulations? Sure, if you’re a divorce lawyer!

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 3:38 pm

        at best a slight new wrinkle in an ongoing conflict.

        goldmarx, i really do not think mentions in ‘5 broken cameras’ is the measure to judge whether price tag attacks are a large part of the conflict. may i suggest google. they are not beneign and they are very much part of the problem. in the same way settlers are part of the problem. perhaps you simply do not recognize jewish terrorism against the palestinian civilian population as real. it is not a slight wrinkle, it’s a very big deal.

        by web:

        About 4,630,000 results (0.21 seconds)
        Search Results

        Price tag policy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_policy
        Jump to Allegations of staged price tag attacks‎: Settlers have at times claimed that Palestinians cut down trees on their own land and blame settlers.
        History of the price tag policy – Police investigations – Israeli reactions
        “Price Tag” Escalation Timeline: Jan 1, 2011 – present – Americans …
        peacenow.org/entries/price_tag_timeline
        Feb 14, 2013 – The following is a timeline of major “Price Tag” attacks (as reported by Israeli sources). It documents a clear escalation in attacks, and the …
        ‘Palestinians may have faked price tag attack’ | JPost | Israel News
        link to jpost.com
        Feb 28, 2013 – Police suspect Palestinians vandalized 6 cars in Kusra village in order to falsely claim a price tag attack by Jewish extremists.
        ‘Price tag’ attack in Arab village caught on tape – Israel News …
        http://www.ynetnews.com › Ynetnews › News
        Jan 3, 2013 – News: Security camera footage from gas station in Qabalan shows two people slash car’s tires; words ‘Solidarity with Esh Kodesh’ found on …
        “price tag” attacks | +972 Magazine
        972mag.com/tag/price-tag-attacks/
        1 day ago – Escalation in ‘price tag’ attacks and nature of incidents send clear message that attempts at coexistence are to be trampled On Sunday, a “price …
        3 Jewish settlers charged in ‘price tag’ attack | JTA – Jewish & Israel …
        http://www.jta.org/news/…/3-jewish-settlers-charged-in-price-tag-attack
        Dec 27, 2012 – Three residents of Jewish West Bank settlements were indicted for carrying out a.
        Palestinian truck torched in apparent ‘price tag’ attack | JTA – Jewish …
        http://www.jta.org/…/palestinian-truck-torched-in-apparent-price-tag-attack
        Jan 1, 2013 – A truck in a West Bank Palestinian village was torched in an apparent.
        Netanyahu Disgusted over New ‘Price Tag’ Attack – Inside Israel …
        http://www.israelnationalnews.com › News
        Dec 12, 2012 – Netanyahu expressed revulsion over new “price tag” attacks on a monastery and Christian cemetery, saying they were against Jewish values.
        Police Say ‘Price Tag’ Attack was Staged by PA | The Jewish Press
        http://www.jewishpress.com › News › Eye on Palestine
        Feb 28, 2013 – Israel police announced Thursday that the alleged “price tag” attack in the Arab village of Kusra last week was fabricated and staged by Arabs …
        ‘Palestinians may have faked price tag attack’
        link to freerepublic.com
        Feb 28, 2013 – MK Uri Ariel (Bayit Yehudi) said he welcomed the police’s quick response, particularly given that “price-tag” attacks had become an excuse for …

        by news

        Add “price tag attacks” section to my Google News homepage
        Search Results

        Livni in Arabic: Crush ‘Price Tag’
        Arutz Sheva-Mar 19, 2013
        Livni posted a statement in Arabic on her Facebook page in which she praised equality. She also pledged to “obliterate” the phenomenon of “price tag” attacks.
        State indicts alleged price tag vandal
        Jerusalem Post-Mar 10, 2013
        In response to the “price-tag” attack, the Tag Meir activist group held a rally outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem on Sunday evening denouncing …
        Son of government employee suspected of price-tag attacks
        Israel Hayom-Mar 6, 2013
        The suspect, who has been arrested for price-tag attacks before, allegedly vandalized a number of vehicles belonging to Palestinians on Monday, puncturing …
        Attack on Purim Highlights Trend in Israeli Racism
        Al-Monitor-Mar 4, 2013
        “Tonight we visited Hassan Ausruf, who is hospitalized at the Department of Ophthalmology at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. … Hassan was brutally …
        Haaretz

        100 percent rise in price-tag attacks in Jerusalem for 2012
        Israel Hayom-Mar 4, 2013
        The attacks, named price-tag attacks because they involve rightists exacting a “price” from Palestinians over government policies perceived to favor the …
        Haaretz

        Jerusalem police announces rise in nationalistic attacks against Arabs
        Global Times-Mar 3, 2013
        The Israeli Jerusalem District Police on Sunday revealed a climb in the amount of nationalistic- motivated attacks against Palestinians, known as “price tag” …
        Haaretz

        Police struggle to arrest price tag vandals
        Jerusalem Post-Mar 3, 2013
        Price tags attacks have increased dramatically in the past few years, from 28 incidents … Police arrested suspects in only 20 percent of the “pricetag” attacks that …

        Jerusalem Police Fall Flat in ‘Price Tag’ Cases
        Arutz Sheva-Mar 3, 2013
        “Price tag” attacks are usually directed at Arabs, and attributed to Jews, especially residents of Judea and Samaria and/or religious and right wing Jews.

        Jerusalem ‘price tag’ cases doubled in 2012, police say
        The Times of Israel-Mar 3, 2013
        Fifty-six “price tag” attacks against Palestinians occurred in Jerusalem and the surrounding area over the past year, police reported Sunday, but charges have …
        Haaretz

        Police: Kusra Vandalism Not “Price Tag” Attack, Was Staged …
        Algemeiner-Mar 1, 2013
        An Israeli Police spokesman has announced that an alleged “price tag” attack in the Arab village of Kusra last Thursday was not the nationalistically motivated …

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 21, 2013, 3:56 pm

        @goldmonk

        “And why should we believe anything you have to say?”

        Why should I care whether you do or not? Why would you think I care whether you do or not?

        “Mostly, you fling personal insults when you disagree.”

        Nonsense. I fling personal insults when people are being stupid (e.g., you), ignorant and hardheaded (e.g., hoppy and the other zionist spear catchers) or evil (e.g., the israeli terror forces, US President Hopey “meat puppet” McChangey, etc.).

        “‘Price tag’ attacks are not a fundamental part of the conflict”

        Of course you would believe that, because it is affects the Palestinians as they withstand terrorist assaults from the pig colonialist “settlers”, you ignore it.

      • Cliff
        March 21, 2013, 3:58 pm

        Price tag attacks are part of this conflict. They may not fit your criteria but that’s irrelevant. They are regularly studied and reported on by human rights groups.

        So some Zionist commentator’s skewed pseudo-intellectual uncited armchair analysis is irrelevant.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 11:15 pm

        No, Hophmi, it is not silly nonsense. Guess you weren’t around during the 1980s when dissatisfaction with mainstream media stereotypes of Jews reached a head with American Jewish feminists coming to grips with negative intermarriage. Sociologists, as I said, asked Jews why they married out, and many gave the reasons I describe.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 1:04 am

        30 years ago? dude, that’s so last century.

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 4:08 pm

        Oh, so looking at history is only relevant when it suits you?

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 10:23 pm

        “Why would anti-Semitism “flare up in the near future?” Is it because Gentiles are intrinsically irrational Jew haters”

        And are people who believe this to be so anti-Gentile? Should we be worried about their anti-gentilism flaring up? Should we base laws on this fear?

      • Djinn
        March 22, 2013, 10:26 pm

        Has any feminist organisation colonized, occupied and brutalized a nation of men to impose a Female State?

      • talknic
        March 23, 2013, 1:55 am

        @ goldmarx “Germany in the 1920s certainly was looking good for Jews (apart from speeches and writings of a future Mufti ally)”

        Start quoting him, in Germany, in the 1920’s …. thx …. I’ll wait link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

      • RoHa
        March 24, 2013, 9:43 pm

        “Of course, a post-occupation Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be free to have its own Law of Return.”

        But that would not help the Palestinians who were driven out of their homes in what is now Israel to return to those homes.

      • talknic
        March 24, 2013, 10:38 pm

        @ goldmarx “a post-occupation Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem should be free to have its own Law of Return”

        Law of Return, immigration or Right of Return legislation? They’re all different and none would address the Palestine refugees who have RoR to what became Israel.

      • James Canning
        March 26, 2013, 1:53 pm

        @Goldmarx – – Intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews erodes the notion that being a Jew is a matter of race rather than religion or culture.
        Who can deplore this?

      • James Canning
        March 26, 2013, 4:28 pm

        Goldmarx – – When Jews mate with non-Jews, the resulting mix helps to erode the notion that being Jewish is a matter of race rather than religion or culture.

      • goldmarx
        March 27, 2013, 10:45 pm

        James – I don’t think Jew should intermarry to assuage Gentile fears or misconceptions about Jews. The best way to erode erroneous notions is through education.

      • goldmarx
        March 27, 2013, 10:51 pm

        Annie: Where do I claim that “price-tag” attacks are benign? And if I did not recognize settler terrorism for what it is, why would I support BDS?

      • goldmarx
        March 28, 2013, 5:01 pm

        Light: At least some part of Palestinian society partook in that “past discrimination”, as I have pointed out in this thread.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2013, 1:50 pm

        goldmarx – – Surely Jews should feel free to marry or mate with non-Jews. Full stop.

      • James Canning
        March 30, 2013, 7:48 pm

        goldmarx – – Surely Jews should marry non-Jews, should they choose to do so. But not as an educational programme for non-Jews.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 31, 2013, 9:20 am

        A couple of suggestions.

        Many Jews may interdate and later intermarry as a form of natural (in modern societies) adolescent rebellion against the pressure of parents and the Jewish community to marry within the faith. They do it precisely because they are urged not to. It is the most obvious way of escaping from a network of obligation that irks them. Many non-Jews who “marry out” of their own birth community may have a similar motivation. This is not the same as being prejudiced against the other sex of your birth group as individuals.

        Many of those who rebel against their birth community in their youth may seek to return to it at a later age after coming to appreciate its positive aspects. This may often lead to divorces. At the same time, of course, there are many intermarried couples who do not divorce.

      • Citizen
        March 31, 2013, 12:50 pm

        @ goldmarx
        How many intermarried Gentiles have you talked with about this? Where do you live? What do you mean when you say such Gentiles realize they were not loved for what they are, but for what they are not? Phil’s intermarried. So am I. I don’t know about Phil, but I can’t make any sense of your comment. Are you intermarried? Or were you? Do you think the failure of Germany to treat its German Jews, and its intermarried, in a good way, gives Israel the right to treat its non-Jews under its control, and its intermarried couples, the way it does? Please answer each question. Thanks!

        PS: I did not intermarry to teach a lesson to anyone, and neither did my Jewish wife. I don’t know about Phil or his wife, so they can speak to this as well, if they choose.

  13. James Canning
    March 10, 2013, 2:38 pm

    Those pursuing deep background to this issue should read Rhythms of Time, by Keith W. Whitelam. It helps to explain how Palestine “lost its history”.

  14. Avi_G.
    March 10, 2013, 2:55 pm

    Roughly 50% of the world’s Jews live in Israel, while the other 50% live outside of it.

    And Jews aren’t exactly flocking to Israel. The Israeli government and various Zionist agencies have at times had to engage in terrorism in order to scare Jews and push them to move to Israel (Such was the case with Egypt’s and Iraq’s Jews, for example).

    Even today, the Israeli government attempts to amplify anti-Semitism and sometimes seeks to distort attacks on individuals in the West in order to make a case for Israel as a safe haven for Jews.

    Add to that Zionist agencies like Birthright and others that actively seek to entice Jews to move to Israel, and the entire enterprise starts to look like a failed, unattractive one. By now, Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1950s understand that they were tricked and fooled.

    The land of milk and honey never was, unless you’re a tool used by the Israeli government to colonize Greater Israel. Then you will be showered with incentives.

    Ironically, as much as Hasbara was and remains an attempt to improve Israel’s image in the eyes of non-Jews, especially in the West, it is also a program aimed at selling a false narrative and false hopes and dreams to Jews the world over.

    That is why the parents of would-be Prisoner X were proud of him when he went off to Israel to serve in the IOF. It’s as though the service was a right of passage, thus — once again — blurring the line between Jewish religion, heritage and tradition, and Jewish militarism and nationalism.

    So what do we learn from this?

    We learn that Jewish nationalism was and always will be a pipe dream because there is no Jewish Nation in the sense of shared values, language, customs, norms, or traditions and second, that Jewish nationalism requires the erosion and destruction of Jewish communities the world over (With their local customs, languages, traditions and heritage).

    Having written that, I am not under the illusion that any of this will penetrate the minds of ardent Zionists because as ideology goes, it shuts down the parts of the brain that encourage free and independent thought and an open mind.

    • NormanF
      March 10, 2013, 5:15 pm

      There is the Hebrew language, Judaism and Zionism. They all constitute an integrative process that’s melded Jews from around the world into a single nation. Israel unlike many immigrant countries, already starts out with considerable advantages. And these will only acculturate and grow stronger with time. Israel is stable and prosperous at a time the Arab World is in its death throes. Anti-Zionists will have to be disillusioned. History hasn’t gone the way they hoped and the Jewish State is here to stay.

      • Citizen
        March 10, 2013, 10:12 pm

        @ NormanF

        The long term future of the Middle East is in play, initiated by the Arab Spring, a rebellion against Arab regimes that essentially have enslaved the Arab on the Street to enrich themselves and the Western elites. Israel’s long term prospects diminish as America diminishes in power, and America diminishes in power due to its own elite regimes pushing the USA-Israel agenda in the Middle East.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 3:12 pm

        @Citizen – – Are you following events in Tunisia? Corruption today is possibly worse than existed before revolution.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 12:08 pm

        @ James Canning

        1. ) Who’s doing the corrupting?
        2. ) Are you trying to suggest the Arab on the Street prefers corruption by the US, rather than the home-grown variety, such as prevails in American politics?

      • Avi_G.
        March 11, 2013, 12:39 am

        NormanF says:
        March 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        There is the Hebrew language

        The Hebrew language was revived for the Zionist enterprise. It was non-existent and remains non-existent among Jews the world over.

        Do you speak, write and read Hebrew? Did Olga speak, write or read Hebrew before she immigrated to Israel? No.

        So Jewish Nationalism is artificial; it is an artificial concept, as opposed to being a natural, linear, progressive extension of ethnic nationalism.

        Thus your argument and the claim on which it is based is null and void.

        Judaism

        Yes. “Judaism”. What does that mean? That you’re using it to describe people means absolutely nothing for it betrays your lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of one simple truth; Jewish customs have over the centuries formed and evolved within the locales in which Jews lived. So a Jew from Morocco could very well have customs, traditions, language, heritage and history that is entirely different, entirely foreign and wholly alien to a Jew from Nepal, Russia or Canada.

        They all constitute an integrative process that’s melded Jews from around the world into a single nation.

        That’s a meaningless phrase because while you’re using it to support the argument you THINK you are making, you’re actually admitting that for there to be a Jewish Nation, they have to be squished, mashed, bent and shoved into a mold that has a Zionist label on it. That is to say that without Israel, there is no Jewish Nation.

        So you’re invalidating your own argument.

        Ironically, this so-called Jewish Nation was fashioned according to Ashkenazi desires and vision.

        Israel unlike many immigrant countries, already starts out with considerable advantages. And these will only acculturate and grow stronger with time.

        That is a great platitude but an argument it does not make. It is devoid of content and meaning.

        Israel is stable and prosperous at a time the Arab World is in its death throes.

        Ibid. You’re defaulting and falling back on Hasbara.

        Besides, none of it is relevant to the topic at hand.

        Anti-Zionists will have to be disillusioned. History hasn’t gone the way they hoped and the Jewish State is here to stay.

        That’s cute. But ultimately, it’s a self-comforting statement that is meaningless in terms of its relevance and in terms of content.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 3:06 pm

        Creation of Hebrew took place in context of “ethnic” nationalism/linguistics, with various European languages that had been strictly oral, gaining their own literature, etc etc

        And of course it was key element in creating Israel.

      • Danaa
        March 21, 2013, 3:40 am

        Avi_G, Shlomo Sand was making some of these very arguments in his latest book, The Invention of the Land of Israel (highly recommended) – maybe he has been reading you? But you are making the more forceful argument about israel being the land of the Ashkenazi. Will there ever be a Mizrahi movement to reclaim their culture, you think?

      • pjdude
        March 13, 2013, 2:11 pm

        um hebrew was dead as a spoken language for over thousand years. it only survived as a liturgical language. in other words its proof of religion not nation.

      • talknic
        March 21, 2013, 1:59 am

        @ NormanF “There is the Hebrew language, Judaism and Zionism. They all constitute an integrative process that’s melded Jews from around the world into a single nation.”

        Uh? The population of most nations are citizens of the same state.

        “Israel is stable and prosperous at a time the Arab World is in its death throes”

        Less Arab states are there? If Israel is so prosperous, why the preposterous military aid and loans from the US?

        “..the Jewish State is here to stay”

        If only it would ‘stay’ in its own territory instead of illegally usurping the Palestinians. The Romans I’m sure thought the Roman Empire was ‘here to stay’ .. vastly larger than Israel ever was, it eventually failed. The USSR was also vastly larger than Israel. The British empire, vastly larger than Israel. The Spanish empire. They all took other folks territory and non were able to maintain indefinitely.

    • Yitzgood
      March 14, 2013, 12:22 am

      there is no Jewish Nation in the sense of shared values, language, customs, norms, or traditions

      Which Jews own the Gemara and which ones don’t? You aren’t just pointing to the fact that some Jews aren’t very involved in Judaism, are you?

  15. yourstruly
    March 10, 2013, 3:18 pm

    by the late 19th century there was little or no habitable land left on earth

    so zionists jews invented the one about a land without a people for a people without a land

    took over palestine & claimed it as their own

    thus zionist jews aren’t being denied the right to self-determination

    only the nonexistent right to occupy another people’s land

  16. Nevada Ned
    March 10, 2013, 3:34 pm

    Some four decades ago, I asked a Palestinian what he thought the Israeli/Palestinian issue could be solved. He said, let the Palestinians return and be Israelis also, with the same rights as the Israeli Jews.
    Sounds reasonable. But this, of course, is the famous “call for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.” If Palestinians and Jews had the same rights, Israel would be the state of all of its citizens, not just its Jewish citizens. It wouldn’t be an exclusively Jewish state.

    But to Israeli partisans, racial equality is a bad thing.

    • Ecru
      March 10, 2013, 6:00 pm

      May I offer a small correction?

      To Israeli partisans, racial equality IN ISRAEL is a bad thing.

      Elsewhere, since it (rightly) benefits Jews and hence (unfortunately) many Zionists, it’s a good thing.

    • MRW
      March 10, 2013, 6:49 pm

      Nevada Ned, smart remark.

    • Citizen
      March 14, 2013, 12:20 pm

      @ Nevada Ned
      If you add up all the Palestinians within the green armistice line, and those in the OT controlled (“administered”) by Israel, and those who are still refugees in Arab countries, don’t you get a total (de facto state) population that is about 50-50 Jewish Israeli and Palestinian? And with the trend to more Palestinian than Jew? Don’t we all know that’s why the US-brokered “peace process” continues on and on, no matter who sits at POTUS and who sits at Israel PM? Demography is Democracy? Perish the thought!

      And, isn’t Israel’s conduct further dictated by biblical romance (Greater Israel) coupled with a military defense decision to keep and extend Israel’s de facto borders, i.e., control over as much land as Israel can grab and keep under its control because the original partition borders recognized by the UN when it recognized Israel are weak from a military defense stand point?

  17. giladg
    March 10, 2013, 3:34 pm

    Yes, Karl Marx was Jewish as well. And what do you know, communism as the form of socialism he pushed for, does not work.
    Not every Jew with an opinion and a title, no matter how big his ego may be, deserves to be listened to.

    • Ecru
      March 10, 2013, 6:02 pm

      Not every Jew with an opinion and a title, no matter how big his ego may be, deserves to be listened to.

      Would that include you?

    • Stephen Shenfield
      March 10, 2013, 6:11 pm

      1. Karl Marx was of Jewish descent, but he was not Jewish in any other sense.

      2. Communism as Marx envisioned it has never existed anywhere, so we cannot tell whether or not it would work.

      3. The right to free expression means nothing if no one is willing to listen to you. Everyone has the right to be listened to.

      • giladg
        March 11, 2013, 1:25 am

        Could it be that Levine’s connection to Judaism is not that much different to what Marx’s was? And if it is, then why flog him as “the Jewish philosopher”? To some it is like a game. They cross red lines and provoke. They have no red lines and will say anything, and often this is irresponsible.

      • W.Jones
        March 11, 2013, 1:34 pm

        You write: “Karl Marx was of Jewish descent, but he was not Jewish in any other sense.”
        Under Halakhic law, one remains Jewish even if they convert to Christianity, which Marx did, or if they lose religion, which he did as well. However, would you happen to know whether under Halakhic Law someone who receives an order of Herem, as did Trotsky, remains Jewish?

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 11, 2013, 5:40 pm

        As I understand it, according to Halakha an errant Jew remains a Jew (though a bad one) only for so long as s/he does not adopt a different religion. But I am willing to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than myself on the subject.

        However, why should anyone who is not an Orthodox Jew feel obliged to judge the matter on the basis of Halakha? I agree with other contributors to this discussion that many people of Jewish descent, perhaps a majority, are not Jewish in any meaningful sense. Karl Marx was not a convert to Christianity. His parents were. He received no Jewish education. He himself rejected all religions. In terms of identity and culture he was a German.

      • sardelapasti
        March 11, 2013, 9:26 pm

        Jones – “Under Halakhic law, one remains Jewish even if they convert to Christianity, which Marx did, or if they lose religion, which he did as well”

        Reason enough to get rid of the cockroaches who still stick to such prehistoric madness.

      • W.Jones
        March 12, 2013, 5:31 pm

        Stephen,

        You wrote: “according to Halakha an errant Jew remains a Jew (though a bad one) only for so long as s/he does not adopt a different religion.”
        What is your basis for believing this?

        According to Rambam, a person who undergoes the technical procedures of conversion… is a valid convert. Even if the motives for conversion were dubious, and even if the convert reverted to idolatry, the conversion remains valid. We may not want this person to marry into our family. We may suspect his/her sincerity and uprightness of character: but he/she is Jewish all the same. This explains why the wives of Samson and Solomon, idolatrous though they were, were nevertheless Jews and were married to their husbands as Jews.
        link to jewishideas.org

        You asked: “why should anyone who is not an Orthodox Jew feel obliged to judge the matter on the basis of Halakha?”
        The easy answer is rationality. The idea that you no longer belong to a people because you change your religious belief matches neither anthropology nor Judaism.

        You wrote: “Karl Marx was not a convert to Christianity. His parents were.”
        To check whether this is true, apply what I said in this post, keeping in mind that under religious law it passes by birth and is not destroyed by conversion.
        What do you get?

        And yes, I would also agree that he was in any case also German in identity and culture.

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 3:28 pm

        Jewish “in any meaningful sense”? Who gets to decide what constitutes “meaningful”? Many Jews are non-religious but secular, and define their ethnic identity as an affinity with Jewish culture (see: Albert Einstein).

        As for Marx, he was born a Jew, and his parents converted to Lutheranism when he was six because his father, Heinrich, could not find work as a lawyer otherwise. In some of his personal writings and lesser-known works, he refers to himself indirectly as a Jew when noting that he was the target of local anti-Semites, for example, during the Cologne Communist trials of 1850.

      • Ellen
        March 17, 2013, 7:42 am

        Marx was born and grew up in Trier, which is in the Rheinland Palitinate. His Grandfather was a very prominent Rabbi for the region, which had a significant Jewish population with a history going back to the Roman occupation of the region. (It is a fascinating history.)

        His parents never converted to anything. His Father was an extremely successful “Kaufman,” and the family quite Patrician for the times.

        Marx was well educated and brilliant, but from a pop psychology view, one could make the argument the seeds of his philosophy was a struggle against the powerful, successful and maybe overbearing grandfather and father — an important Rabbi in a tradition-rich society, and an economically successful father.

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 10:55 am

        Well, technically, Marx’s parents did convert, but not because they believed in Christianity.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 12:27 pm

        @ Stephen Shenfield
        Pure Capitalism has never existed anywhere either. We don’t know whether or not that would work either. What we do know is the USSR collapsed, and we also know what it cost humanity to attempt to implement it. And we still have China, N Korea, etc. And there’s lots of news about what it’s costing humanity to retain even the corrupt capitalistic systems we see today.

    • justicewillprevail
      March 10, 2013, 6:34 pm

      Perhaps you should educate yourself a little, and find out his importance as a thinker and analyst.

      • giladg
        March 11, 2013, 1:36 am

        Tell that to all those killed by Stalin.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 11, 2013, 5:44 pm

        How can he possibly do that? Some of those killed by Stalin are in heaven, while others are in hell. If justicewillprevail goes to heaven, how can he tell that to the victims of Stalin who are in hell? And vice versa.

      • Shingo
        March 12, 2013, 9:06 am

        He was Jewish too right?

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 31, 2013, 9:27 am

        What, Stalin? He was a Georgian (original name Jugashvili), though some think he was an Osset. Probably you are joking.

    • Hostage
      March 10, 2013, 7:04 pm

      Not every Jew with an opinion and a title, no matter how big his ego may be, deserves to be listened to.

      I know. I don’t listen to any Jew who claims that all Jews everywhere are members of the same “Jewish people” collective or that they have the collective right to commit wrongful acts against others on account of that false assertion.

    • Blank State
      March 10, 2013, 7:10 pm

      “Not every Jew with an opinion and a title, no matter how big his ego may be, deserves to be listened to”

      Lemme guess…

      You just want us to listen to the liars and the racist ones????

      How ’bout you YOU tell us how a “Jewish State” can by any stretch of the imagination be “democratic”????

      • giladg
        March 11, 2013, 1:46 am

        Democracy is the religion of those who don’t really have one. And maybe, just maybe, democracy is not all what it is made out to be. For one, it undermines the concept of community. It pushes man into corners of isolation. I would rather be part of a Jewish community, or a Muslim community, or Christian community than be someone flogging democracy because this is all they know.

      • thankgodimatheist
        March 11, 2013, 8:36 am

        “Democracy is the religion of those who don’t really have one.”
        Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know the kind. Messianic, fascistic settlers!

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 12:55 pm

        @ giladg
        I guess you were not born and raised in the USA. Otherwise, you would not say “democracy is the religion of those who don’t really have one.” I’ve lived here my whole long life, and I am a senior citizen, and I never met a single person, no matter of what religion, who did not support America’s fundamentally democratic governing structure. In that sense, at least in America, democracy is viewed as compatible with all religions here in the USA. It’s not either/or.

        Americans, whether they identify with any religion, or not, all agree that the US constitution requires separation of religion and state, pushing both freedom to practice any religion, and freedom from the establishment of a state religion, no matter which one.

        This is not to say that a significant number of Americans do not look with skepticism on the fact that, under our system of representative government, in partnership with the prevailing two-party system and gerrymandering, result in a total system that does not reflect the will of the demos, the majority will. The popular vote is not decisive in our POTUS elections. Further, our federal government employs no referendum tool; only about half of our states do.

        At any rate, at least in America, nobody has, or is “flogging democracy because this is all they know.”

        Given these facts, how is it any American “would rather be part of a Jewish community, or a Muslim community, or Christian community than be someone flogging democracy”?

        In America, one can be a part of any religious or ethnic community, yet be fully supportive of the democratic concept. There’s no either/or.

    • RoHa
      March 10, 2013, 9:25 pm

      “Not every Jew with an opinion and a title, no matter how big his ego may be, deserves to be listened to.”

      Indeed not. One should analyse the arguments he uses, and decide on that basis. On my analysis, Levine makes a pretty good case.

      Can you see any major flaws in Levine’s argument?

      • giladg
        March 11, 2013, 2:03 am

        Yes, it ignores the history of the Jewish people. It ignores the double standard practiced against Jews and it ignores the more than two thousand year track record of the persecution of the Jewish people. No other people have been the target for this length of time. No one else is going to protect the Jewish people but themselves, and In their own land. And the land was Jewish before it was anything else to anyone else currently contesting it.

      • RoHa
        March 12, 2013, 12:17 am

        “Yes, it ignores the history of the Jewish people….”

        Look at Para 3.
        “In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust,”

        So he is aware of this history. But how does this history annul his arguments?

        “It ignores the double standard practiced against Jews”

        What double standard is that? If you mean:

        “The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess.” (Para 3)

        then you need to read the rest of the essay, since he devotes most of it to analysing the flaws in that claim

        “And the land was Jewish before it was anything else to anyone else currently contesting it.”

        In Para 7 he explicilty says that claim can be challenged, but he won’t challenge it because “The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. ” (Para 8)

        “it ignores the more than two thousand year track record of the persecution of the Jewish people. No other people have been the target for this length of time.”

        So how does this (assuming it is true that Jews have never learnt how to get on with the neighbours) vitiate his argument?

        “No one else is going to protect the Jewish people but themselves , and in their own land.”

        The Australian Police and the Australian Defence Force protect Australian Jews just as much as they protect other Australians. And in their own land – Australia.

    • James Canning
      March 11, 2013, 1:41 pm

      @Wjones – – Surely a person’s religion should be for that person to determine. The number of people of Jewish descent in England must be more than one million, but only about one-quarter of those people regard themselves as “Jews”.

      • W.Jones
        March 13, 2013, 12:10 am

        Of course, the person’s religion should be for that person to determine. However Israeli law severely imposes on exercising that right. Do to its non-anthropological, non-religious definition, even if one accepts the Zionist idea of the State as a “Safe Haven”, the State excludes them from invoking the “Law of Return” if they change their religion.

        If a person decides that the Rebbe, Shabbati Zvi, and a multitude of others was the Messiah, they can immigrate. However, if they decide Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and join His religion, they are no longer considered “Jewish” by the State and cannot exercize the “Right of Return.”

        Why?

      • sardelapasti
        March 13, 2013, 8:53 am

        Canning and Jones – You haven’t been paying attention.
        None of this has anything to do with religion, even remotely.
        It hasn’t got anything to do with any belief or practice.

        Zionists consider you Jewish for the same criterion as Hitler, i.e. race. If you’re “born to a Jewish woman” they will never let you go, no matter if you worship Jesus, Indra or Linear Logic. They also just reintroduced conversion (for White-Caucasians, and provided it is approved by the dominant sect)

        (One passing note: followers of Shabetai Zevi, whom you mentioned as being welcomed to the Zionist entity, are certainly not welcome, not because they have been Moslems for centuries but for some excommunication, and their credentials rejected. Neither are the deeply religious Jews welcome, who actively oppose Zionism, like Neturei Karta. Many of those who lived in Palestine then have been beaten and expelled from Palestine by the Zionists. The so-called law of “return” is for Zionist invaders only.)

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:36 pm

        Zionists imported 120,000 black Africans from Ethiopia. On condition they live as “Jews”. Whatever that is.

      • W.Jones
        March 13, 2013, 10:37 pm

        Dear Sard,

        You answered with a welcome sense of humor. And I was not aware of the status of the followers of Shabbatai. If someone undergoes excommunication, do they lose their status as a member of the people? Trotsky underwent the unusual process of herem, pronounced on him from Odessa when the Germans occupied that city during WWI.

        Nonetheless, regarding your statement:

        Jones – You haven’t been paying attention.
        None of this has anything to do with religion, even remotely. It hasn’t got anything to do with any belief or practice. Zionists consider you Jewish for the same criterion as Hitler, i.e. race. If you’re “born to a Jewish woman” they will never let you go, no matter if you worship Jesus

        You should know that the Law of Return as amended in 1970 says:

        Definition

        4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.

        You can also check how this law has been applied to those who qualify by matrilineal descent but belong to another religion.

      • sardelapasti
        March 14, 2013, 12:44 am

        Sure I mentioned the recent fad of accepting converts. How else is one to import so many nice Orthodox (and White!!! as opposed to the eugenizable Falashas) Russians? As for “other religion”, it is not applied. Never has. Atheists of course, but thousands of converts have gained citizenship (I know many such Buddhists and Catholics), and more importantly converts or offspring are viewed as Jews by both the Zionists and the Clergy.
        That between the Zevi bunch and official Rabbinate is a poisoned well with 300 years of bad smell. All I know is that the religious do lose all control of bodily functions when one mentions them. You better direct the inquiry at a specialist.

      • Citizen
        March 14, 2013, 1:29 pm

        @ W. Jones

        Because Jews who believe Jesus was the true messiah combine Christianity and Judaism? Seem like that to me. That’s a NO-NO. Makes identity life much too ambiguous. Harder to milk the masses–on either side of the religious divide. And a second, more practical reason is that Israel is concerned the Jews-For-Jesus types in Israel would preach and convert too many Jewish Israelis. See link to haaretz.com

      • W.Jones
        March 14, 2013, 4:22 pm

        Sard,

        What makes you so sure of this? Perhaps the individuals you are thinking of identified as Jewish, but were not counted as being originally Jewish and thus were not converts?

        Under the Law of Return, a relative of a Jew may immigrate, unless they were a Jew themselves who converted. As a result of this, hundreds of thousands of people with what we might consider Jewish background who belong to other religions have immigrated in the last few decades. However, the Law of Return allows this for those it labels “non-Jews”.

        As a result, a Christian can have patrilineal descent and be allowed in as a non-convert. As a result, a person with a Jewish grandfather on their mother’s side would be let in. Yet a Christian with full matrilineal descent would not, because they would be labeled a Jew who converted.

        This explains how the “other religion” category has been used to exclude people, even when on the surface the significant presence of immigrants with other religions might have suggested otherwise.

        Fifteen years ago, the court rejected a petition by Messianic Jews who demanded to be recognized as Jews so as to automatically receive Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return. In that landmark case, the court ruled that Messianic Jews had converted, and therefore were no longer Jewish. Since then, the state has refused to grant all requests for citizenship according to the Law of Return by Messianic Jews.

        link to christianityboard.com

        What do you make of the article “Girl Would Rather Die Than Deny Faith”?

        Alina Milan (Elena by baptism) died on the 14th of March, 2011 [in Israel]. Alina was a fifth year student at Moscow State University’s Law School. This event might have passed unnoticed had it not been for certain details.

        link to frmilovan.wordpress.com

      • sardelapasti
        March 14, 2013, 5:19 pm

        Jones – Basically we are looking at it from different angles but it’s the same thing. Or rather two things: One is the fact that for both tribal ‘autorities’ and Zionists religion does not count, only the racial factor does. The second is that the state, being the nasty piece of works that we know, has prepared for itself a situation where everything can be decided arbitrarily thanks to a lot of little windows in the legislation. So if my nominally Jewish- born cousin who later got religion –Catholic– decides to go get a Zionist entity citizenship, she gets it no questions asked as also ex-neighbor, Buddhist University professor Goldberg (no need to mention any religious connection), while for a happy-go-lucky Jew-for-Jesus the 1970 law will be invoked to reject a citizenship request (but for his tribal environment he will still be counted as stray-Jewish.) Not having any religion does not count as not being Jewish…

        Anyway, that 1970 law of course works for conversions. Its full significance, from the viewpoint of expressing the unlimited racism of the Zionists, is in the very apt summary I see on the Web site you linked to:
        ” According to state laws it is only possible for Jews and atheists to gain Israeli citizenship.”
        If that by itself is not enough to characterize Zionism as racism, I don’t know what is.
        It also shows up anyone who continues to characterize himself as Jewish in absence of religious devotion.

      • W.Jones
        March 14, 2013, 8:41 pm

        P.S. When I asked “What makes you so sure of this?”, I was referring to your perception that “‘other religion’ has never applied. Never has.”

      • sardelapasti
        March 15, 2013, 2:51 am

        You’re right, the correct wording should have been “never applied except for official purposes”. Mea maxima culpa.

      • James Canning
        March 15, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Sardelapasti- – How do you explain Israel’s importation of 120,000 Ethiopians, who had but a tiny bit of “Jewish” blood or descent?

      • goldmarx
        March 15, 2013, 3:15 pm

        There was no ‘condition’ – the ‘Beta Israel’ community of Ethiopia wanted to leave Ethipia because they saw no future for themselves there, suffering from local anti-Semitism. They always claimed to be Jewish, descended from the children of Solomon and Sheba.

        Since their voluntary migration to Israel, they have faced racist policies and attitudes, sometimes from rabbis claiming that they are not Jewish enough, or from Russian immigrants competing with them for the same jobs, or, most recently, from doctors tricking their women into taking birth control due to a racist preference for white Jews.

      • James Canning
        March 15, 2013, 4:50 pm

        Experts agree the genetic link of Ethipian “Jews” to the Jews of 2000 years ago, is very small. Agreed, I assume.
        Curious thing that the CIA would fly tens of thousands of Ethiopian “Jews” to Israel.

      • sardelapasti
        March 16, 2013, 12:18 pm

        Canning – “Experts agree the genetic link of Ethipian “Jews” to the Jews of 2000 years ago, is very small.”

        No they don’t. They essentially either agree that no such statement can be made, or that totally extraneous considerations of history etc. make it possible. You report what reporting journalists agree upon.

        “Agreed, I assume.”

        You assume wrong.

        What should be hammered in the heads of the laymen who keep insinuating this kind of stuff into discussions is that *it *is *irrelevant. Try it on some racial purity blog.

        “Curious thing that the CIA would fly tens of thousands of Ethiopian “Jews” to Israel.”

        Why do you use quote marks around “Jews” only in this case?
        What is so curious in the CIA doing any dirty jobs for the Zionists, when the entire US Government’s main job is to go when the Zionist saith ‘go’ and come when the Zionist saith ‘come’?

      • W.Jones
        March 16, 2013, 12:42 pm

        Sard,

        It’s interesting. You wrote: “One is the fact that for both tribal ‘autorities’ and Zionists religion does not count, only the racial factor does.”
        But then what about the fact that if you convert to their denomination, you get in regardless of race. But if you are open to them about the fact you followed their religion and then changed to another, you can’t get in- regardless of race?
        I understand that you, as a strong critic of the system who has frequently heard its terminology, might want to focus on “race”. But perhaps this ultimately isn’t the criteria?

        You wrote as an example: ” So if my nominally Jewish- born cousin who later got religion –Catholic– decides to go get a Zionist entity citizenship, she gets it no questions asked”, and you added your neighbor as another example. However, what about two other explanations for this: Perhaps they did not have full matrilineal lineague and thus entered as a “non-Jewish relative”?

        Or perhaps they did not mention it on their application, and the issue was overlooked? I have heard that some immigrants are afraid to practice their “other” religion due to fear about their registration (this could apply if they fear being uncovered for immigration fraud).

        What do you think about this and the article about Alina?

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 1:34 pm

        Sardelapasti – – Are you implying you think the Ethiopian Jews have more than a tiny genetic connection to the Jews who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago?

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 1:43 pm

        W. Jones – – You pose excellent question for Sard in your first paragraph.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 3:42 am

        Jones – We already beat this one to death.
        First, conversions (a very recently reauthorized thing) are different from the main thing anyway, just recruiting cannon fodder. Those are an infinitesimal fraction anyway so we won’t bother with it.

        “if you are open to them about the fact you followed their religion and then changed to another, you can’t get in-” Just a mo. You don’t have to follow any religion to be counted as Jew if you racially fit the bill. So if, from either racially OK or converted-Jewish, you have converted to something un-jewish, you may run afoul of the new law, a law created for the purpose of keeping a weapon to be arbitrarily used in the hands of the government. If the government offices have something against you and decide to get rid of you they may use that. However, both for atheist government goons in private and the religious leaders openly, you fully count as Jewish, “theirs” to rule upon.
        And duh, of course the people I brought as examples didn’t mention their conversion to the government officials, given the 1970 law. They were making a citizenship request for some reason of their own, so why would they immediately cancel it in that way?
        And I already wrote about the Alina article: It is accurate in that one can only become a citizen officially if either an atheist (Meisterrasse) or a Jew (Meisterrasse and religious, ot converted), i.e. the best proof of racism.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 3:51 am

        Canning – Now you are the adjudicator of Jewishness percentages, eh? What “tiny bit”? Those Ethiopians might have a much closer connection to the Jewish nomads of antiquity (whose origin may well be the Yemen, theoretically) than some converted Khazars or Berbers, but that remains irrelevant. They seem to have practiced Judaism as their religion for at least many centuries. There is nothing to explain.

      • James Canning
        March 17, 2013, 1:35 pm

        Sardelapasti – – I take it you concede the Ethiopian Jews flown to Israel by the CIA had but a tiny genetic connection to the Jews who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago.
        Are you arguing that any group claiming to have been “Jewish” should be allowed to relocate to Israel?

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 10:58 am

        Where is your source that the CIA was involved in flying Ethiopian Jews to Israel? Israel has its own intelligence agencies, and enough planes to do the job themselves.

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 2:24 pm

        Goldmarx – – I’ll look for a report in an accepted historical account. CIA flew tens of thousands of the Ethiopian Jews to Israel. This fact apparently is not well-known.

      • W.Jones
        March 19, 2013, 2:10 am

        Sard,

        What are you talking about when you write: First, conversions (a very recently reauthorized thing) are different from the main thing anyway, just recruiting cannon fodder.
        I think you are saying that governmental conversions performed in the army are recruiting cannon fodder. OK, I can accept that. You say it’s different from the “main thing”, and by this I take it you mean governmental conversions to a certain governmental brand of Orthodox Judaism are different from the “main thing”, by which you mean typical conversions to Judaism in the US, which is often non-Orthodox Judaism.

        First, even if you are correct that governmental conversion is not the main thing, it still proves that a person of any race can get in under the “Law of Return” if they use religion, and that religion (however unusual the ‘army religion’ is) trumps race when it comes to determining “nationality”.

        Second, I do think that you are strongly misunderestimating the importance of the “official religion.” While Americans would typically be non-Orthodox, I read that a big majority of the new immigrants from the former Soviet Union pick the “official” sect, even if they do not practice it strongly. This particular “conversion preference” of the recent wave was one reason publicly given for why the changes to the conversion rules in that direction a few years ago were made, as I remember reading. And this makes sense, since the Reform movement was much less pronounced in Eastern Europe than it has been in the US.

      • W.Jones
        March 19, 2013, 2:38 am

        Sard,

        You commented: “You don’t have to follow any religion to be counted as Jew if you racially fit the bill.”
        Hebrew University has identified Palestinian individuals by DNA who it considers ethnically Jewish. Assuming you can find the “Lost Tribe” in one of the Middle Eastern countries, they would have to convert to Rabbinic Judaism under the Law of Return, because by now they would be Christian or Muslim. Even if an atheist ethnically fits the bill, they may have to follow the State’s religion depending on whether the person in their “link” has converted to “another religion” at some point.

        You write:

        if, from either racially OK or converted-Jewish, you have converted to something un-jewish, you may run afoul of the new law, a law created for the purpose of keeping a weapon to be arbitrarily used in the hands of the government. If the government offices have something against you and decide to get rid of you they may use that.

        According to one Russian person, publicly practicing or disseminating the “other religion” is exactly the kind of thing the persons in question are worried would upset the government.

        The point you are trying to make is that the “other religion” criteria is just a paper formality that is not enforced. My point is that formality or not, this has enshrined in law the definition of what the nationality means.

        Furthermore, this paper formality really is enforced, when immigrants who fear exclusion under the law tone down their open religious expression. For example, even if the government did not strongly care about laws against underage smoking, the fact that those laws were occasionally enforced would still have a practical effect of toning down the practice. So not only does the “other religion” issue define the nationality in law, it also has a certain practical affect as well.

        You ask: They were making a citizenship request for some reason of their own, so why would they immediately cancel it in that way?
        Because they took their religion seriously and did not want to give up their old home and job and immigrate to a place they would risk getting kicked out of for practicing it openly as an “illegal immigrant.”

        You conclude that the article about Alina is the “best proof of racism”. But isn’t it true that she had the “right” ethnicity and was excluded for her religious status?

        Regards.

      • lysias
        March 20, 2013, 5:37 pm

        Most of the languages of Ethiopia — including Amharic, the official language — are Semitic languages. Actually, South Semitic, related to Southern Arabic dialects of Yemen and elsewhere. Amharic is descended from Classical Ethiopic, or Ge’ez, which is still the liturgical language of the Ethiopian Christian churches (as well as of the Beta Israel Jewish community, i.e., the Falashas).

  18. David Doppler
    March 10, 2013, 3:54 pm

    In a larger sense, this “philosophical” piece in the NYTimes opinionator blog is more evidence of how badly Netanyahu, by grossly overplaying his demands on the US, has damaged Israel’s image.

    • MRW
      March 10, 2013, 6:45 pm

      David Doppler,

      more evidence of how badly Netanyahu, by grossly overplaying his demands on the US, has damaged Israel’s image.

      Long-term consequence–among the American people–of his shameless (foolish) and arrogant appearance before Congress in May 2011 anchored by the subsequent idiocy and illogic of his Iran reasoning displayed at the UN, the Wiley Coyote performance. Israelis and our inebriated republican congressmen never thought that one out. As bad as them flocking to Israel the summer of 2009 when our economy was hurting badly, which van Susteren (sp?) called them out for on Fox.

  19. MK_Ultra
    March 10, 2013, 6:59 pm

    We ‘really ought to question’ Israel’s right to exist as well as we really ought to question the Palestinians right to exist in their own homeland and as free people.

    • Bumblebye
      March 10, 2013, 7:31 pm

      The pathetic ‘right to exist’ argument comes up most often when Israel is working its hardest to ensure the annihilation/eradication of Palestine and all things Palestinian. The rabid zios absolutely do not consider that Palestine has any right to exist at all. Or its people in the land they covet so.

  20. Blank State
    March 10, 2013, 7:05 pm

    “There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state”

    It is truly astounding that there are those that leap for glee whenever someone draws a common sensical and obvious conclusion about the hateful and racist state of Israel. What, this quoted conclusion was not a truth prior to Levine’s pseudo courageous epiphany?? We need to pat these moderate sensical Jews like Levine on the fanny when they finally state a truth that they have known, (had to have known), since the concept of a “Jewish State” was first advanced as the ultimate goal of the Israeli nation?

    This quotation, this conclusion, ain’t rocket science, folks. Levine ain’t no hero for stating the obvious. He’s simply coming clean, undoubtedly waaaaaayyy past the time he arrived at this non-earth-shattering conclusion.

    You think these scumbag politicians in DC haven’t drawn the same conclusion, long, long ago? Do you really think these lying scheming criminals think a “Jewish State” can possibly be a “democracy” by any stretch of the imagination????? It takes Levine to enlighten the planet???

    Geez. Spare me.

    • goldmarx
      March 15, 2013, 3:06 pm

      Levine isn’t going to enlighten that many people if his piece is confined to a mere Opinon blog, anyway I think the effect is overrated. If the Times were to print that on its Op-Ed page, then that would be more of a breakthrough.

  21. W.Jones
    March 10, 2013, 8:47 pm

    Phil,

    You have brought up a good point here about the mainstream media’s silence on this issue. Likewise, Ellis has talked about the “interfaith deal” where the State system is not criticized by some religious groups that have a duty to do so because they fear disrupting interfaith relations.

    However, I have a third situation to ask about. I think there are progressive groups dealing with this issue in which some people do not wish to cross “red lines.” For example, I was a guest at a Jstreet group that discussed “The Gatekeepers”. People there wanted to criticize “the Right” in Israeli society for demonizing and attacking Rabin. And one person told me they believed Palestinians should have a state- as if this could be a controversial position. A big part of me would like to point out that Israeli society- left and right- shares an overall history of dominating Palestinians. For example, Livni the main “leftist” supported the massive attacks on Gaza.

    My question is whether one should try to cross these lines in a gathering like that, and if so, how? As their guest, I want to hear their views, but looking back I am doubtful that they wanted to hear what I had to say anyway.

    I went to a JVP event and things seemed alot better regarding sharing a range of views on topics from religion to politics.

    Peace.

  22. RoHa
    March 10, 2013, 9:22 pm

    ‘Levine arrives at the actual conditions of Palestinians, including the Nakba, and says that these abuses were “unavoidable” in the constitution of a Jewish state.

    “I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic.”‘

    Looks as though he has caught up with Michael Neumann, there.

    I note that he makes several points which I and others have made, usually explicitly, on this site. They bear repeating.

    1. Claiming Jews are a “people” is anti-Semitic, insofar as it suggests that Australian Jews are not real Australians like the rest of us.

    2. Self-determination applies to people “by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders.” (So all Norman F is wrong when he claims that Jews have a right of self-determination.)

    3. “Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group.”

    • goldmarx
      March 15, 2013, 3:02 pm

      I’ve read Levine’s piece, and unless I missed something, he did not go as far as to deny that Jews are a people. Most Jews refer to themselves as members of the Jewish people – it is a common reference, taken for granted to the point where few question it inside the Jewish community.

      I have no problem seeing myself as a member of the Jewish people and an American by citizenship, and I don’t see how that implies I am not a ‘real’ American like ‘real’ Gentile Americans.

      • RoHa
        March 15, 2013, 11:48 pm

        Levine defines the relevant sense of “people” for the purpose of the discussion: “that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination;”

        He says he will not discuss this, but says

        “However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people.” (Para 9)

        “The idea[of 19 Century anti-Semites] was that since Jews constituted a nation [which implies "a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination"] of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state.”

        So saying they are a people as defined is antiSemitic, insofar as it suggests that Australian Jews are not real Australians like the rest of us. They are not members of the Australian nation, but of some other nation.

        “Most Jews refer to themselves as members of the Jewish people – it is a common reference, taken for granted to the point where few question it inside the Jewish community.”

        So what? If they do not mean “people” in the relevant sense, then it is irelevant. If they do mean “people” in the relevant sense, then either the Jews are mistaken or the anti-Semites were correct.

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 11:15 am

        Or the Jews are correct and the anti-Semites are wrong.

        “People” and “nation” do not always mean the same thing. By “people”, as in the “Jewish people”, I refer to the multi-racial ethnic group to which I belong. Jews are not just a religion – prior to Judaism, Jews existed as the Hebrews.

        Australian Jews are citizens of Australia – Australian nationals – but this does make them part of the Australian ‘people’ in the manner I described

        The anti-Semitic spin on “nation” is that since Jews are a “nation”, they are a threat to seize the territory of ANY country in which they already happen to reside and make it their own (i.e. Jewish) nation, since two different nations can not exist in the same territory because something has to give. Historically, this was a rationale for anti-Semites to expel Jews from their own countries.

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @ goldmark

        RE: “Australian Jews are citizens of Australia – Australian nationals – but this does make them part of the Australian ‘people’ in the manner I described.”
        And RE: “I have no problem seeing myself as a member of the Jewish people and an American by citizenship, and I don’t see how that implies I am not a ‘real’ American like ‘real’ Gentile Americans.”

        Real Americans, and real Australians, I imagine, regardless of their ethnic or religious roots, put America, or Australia– First on their agenda. If your top interest is Israel’s well-being, survival, than it’s not America’s, or Australia’s. Simple.

      • James Canning
        March 18, 2013, 2:21 pm

        Goldmarx – – Weren’t Hebrews another Arab tribe, prior to Judaism?

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 2:25 pm

        @ goldmarx
        There’s not threat by the Jewish nation to seize the territory of the USA or Australia, or for Canada, or the UK for example, That’s a glaring red herring.
        What is at risk is by Israel First 5th columns in the respective countries, is that their respective best interests are jeopardized by Israel Firsters living as citizens within their respective borders.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 5:23 pm

        Since I am an American citizen, my top interest is America’s survival.

        See? Simple.

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 8:39 pm

        “By “people”, as in the “Jewish people”, I refer to the multi-racial ethnic group to which I belong.”

        If you do not claim that this “Jewish people” possesses a right to self-determination, then your use of the term is not the same as Levine’s, and is thus irrelevant.

        Just as a matter of interest, how do you “belong” to it?

        Australian Jews belong to the multi-racial group “the Australian people” by virtue of (first and foremost) citizenship, by usual residence, and by “sentiment of attachment”. (A vague term. I hope you can guess what I mean by it.)

        I presume that you have some similar way of “belonging” to “the American people”.

        Now I can imagine that you have a “sentiment of attachment” to “the Jewish people” (i.e. the Jews as a collective group), but what other features are there? Ancestry could be part of it, perhaps? (But not enough by itself. Why would this extend “belonging” to all Jews rather than just your own family lineage? And would that enable you to “belong” to those Jews who are converts.)

        If “sentiment of attachment” is the only common feature between the two “belongings”, that hints that the concept of “people” in “the Australian/American people” is different from the concept of “people” in “the Jewish people”.

        (By way of analogy, I “belong” to “the RoHa family” and (in a different way) to “the Australian people”, but – common metaphors notwithstanding – a family is not the same as a people.)

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 8:49 pm

        “The anti-Semitic spin on “nation” is that since Jews are a “nation”, they are a threat to seize the territory of ANY country in which they already happen to reside and make it their own (i.e. Jewish) nation,”

        Not in most (which, admittedly, is not very much) of the anti-Semitic literature I have seen. The idea there was that Jews (a) had no real loyalty to the country, and were less likely to work for the common good, more likely to betray the country, and more likely to be parasites on the country than non-Jews, and (b) were much more inclined to support and promote the interests of other Jews (both domestic and foreign) than the interests of equally-deserving fellow citizens. This last was sometimes thought to extend to Jews forming a international conspiracy for Jewish control of the world for the benefit of Jews.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 9:40 pm

        RoHa, i have never heard of this anti semitism idea of goldmarx’s either, ever. i don’t think anyone has ever referenced it here before. i wonder if this alleged theory is even floating around on websites anywhere.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 1:40 am

        The Hebrews were Semites. I’m not sure when the Arabs first appeared.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 2:09 pm

        Goldmarx – – Hebrews were a tribe of Arabs (or proto-Arabs, if one prefers).

      • lysias
        March 20, 2013, 5:53 pm

        Pre-Judaism, Canaan was one entity, including both Palestine and Phoenicia. Essentially the same language of Canaanite was spoken throughout the area.

        Phoenician is a descendant of Canaanite, and not much different from it. Linguistically, Hebrew is also a descendant of Canaanite, and it is also not very different either from Canaanite or from Phoenician.

        Canaanite –like Hebrew and Phoenician — was a Semitic language. But Arabic is a different language, belonging to another branch of Semitic. So the Hebrews were a Semitic tribe but not an Arab one, and the same is true of Phoenicians and Canaanites.

      • James Canning
        March 20, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Lysias – – Are you saying there was a “racial” difference between the tribe or tribes that became the Hebrew, and the tribes that became the “Arabs”?
        Or that racially they were one and the same, but linguistically there are distinctions that can be drawn between early Hebrew and early arabic?

      • gamal
        March 20, 2013, 8:47 pm

        Phoenician is the Greek for Canaanite, isnt it..Purple ones etc..same not descended from, an illusion caused by using Phoenician for Canaanites in general history and Canaanites in Biblical discourse..

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 10:45 am

        Roha: Your Point (a) is virtually a restatement of what I said. Jews were accused of inherently having no loyalty because they were considered to be a nation divorced from territory, looking to glom onto whatever they could find.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 10:58 am

        Roha: 1) Yes, I do believe the Jewish people has the right to self-determination.

        2) I am a Jew, born of Jewish parents, both Holocaust survivors.

        3) When I think of American “people”, I think of the dominant ethnic US group, those who have been referred to as “WASPs”. I am not a “WASP”. My citizenship is American, nothing more.

        4) My sense of Jewish identity is best expressed by the Society for Secular Jewish Humanism (you can google it to find out more). In particular, there is common ancestry, traditions, holidays, and a mindset that appreciates irony.

        Have a nice day.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 11:10 am

        3) When I think of American “people”, I think of the dominant ethnic US group

        what? how unamerican can you get? !!! california, being 40% hispanic, in a couple years will you consider californians “hispanic people”?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 11:26 am

        Roha: Your Point (a) is virtually a restatement of what I said.

        goldmarx, are you adept at copypasting? because i am not reading any of these worn anti semitic allegations RoHa recounted as replicating what you claimed earlier:

        they are a threat to seize the territory of ANY country

        could you direct us to a source, like wiki or something, where this is explained. for example, i think people better understand the meaning of ‘bloodlibel’. is there a particular country, other than palestine, you’re referencing? that is a very big consiracy theory indeed. “ANY country”? and it’s not the same as looking to glom onto whatever they could find., which btw i have not heard either.

        could it be you’re perpetuating, or spreading rumors that are obscure in order to claim even more outlandish allegations? so there must be some famous historical thing that happened (outside of stealing palestine) you can reference to back up your allegation of victim status in this regard.

        i will most definitely eat my words if there is a history of this, like if it’s in the protocols or something (which alas, i have not had time nor inclination to read, pardon my naivete). so please, a link to support referencing a specific ‘territory’. i mean, did hitler claim jews were going to seize the territory of germany? and with what forces pray tell?

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 11:38 am

        @ goldmarx

        According to the latest 2012 US Census, the dominant ethnic group in the USA are the German Americans; that is to say, there are more Americans who can trace their family roots back to Germany than to any other country: link to bizjournals.com

      • Light
        March 21, 2013, 11:41 am

        Yes, I do believe the Jewish people has the right to self-determination.v

        .

        From your post, it appears you live in the US. Do you lack self determination? If so how does it manifest itself? What does the right to self-determination even mean?

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 11:45 am

        Further, you apparently have not noticed that WASPs are no longer dominant in American politics, nor that white babies no longer comprise the majority of babies born in America. link to npr.org

        Also note that German Americans fought two world wars (& in the biggest numbers of US combat soldiers) against Germany. That’s what it means to be an American.

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:06 pm

        Annie: And who appointed you the judge of what is “unAmerican”?

        Just as I am a member of the Jewish people who is an American citizen, making me part of the American nation, the Latino-Americans you refer to are American citizens and therefore, part of the American nation. Neither Jews nor Latino-Americans are WASPs.

        ‘American People’ implies a deeper ethnic link, as I have already described, although sometimes politicians do get carried away and refer, poetically, to all US citizens as ‘the American people.’

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 12:14 pm

        Annie: Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that the forces of “JudeoBolshevism” were out to do just that, as well as to the rest of the world.

      • American
        March 21, 2013, 12:20 pm

        goldmarx says:
        March 21, 2013 at 10:58 am

        2) I am a Jew, born of Jewish parents, both Holocaust survivors.>>>>

        Every zio troll who shows up here ( and on most net boards) claims his parents were one of the 50,000 holocaust surviors, and that’s the total number of camp surviors and they are all mostly dead….and even if you were it doesn’t entitle you to any special consideration.

        link to archives.gov

        US and Ally government records and the Holocaust Museum records both list survivors liberated at each concentration camp by the allies at a e total of 50,000 Jewish *camp* survivors. Allies liberated Flossenbürg on April 23, 1945, which had just over 1,500 prisoners. At Buchenwald there were around 21,000 . Of the 21,000 there on the day it was liberated 4,000 were listed as Jewish..Before the liberation Auschwitz had already been closed and the prisoners transferred to Buchenwald. At Dachau on April 26, 1945, when it was liberated by the allies there were 67,665 registered prisoners in Dachau and its subcamps; more than half of this number were in the main camp. Of these, 43,350 were categorized as political prisoners, while 22,100 were Jews, with the remainder falling into various other categories. There had been a typhus epidemic at Auschwitz when the inmates were transferred to Buchenwald and at Buchenwald typhus was found in 3,000 of the prisoners.
        Concerning survivors and also actual Jewish refugees
        ….link to geschichteinchronologie.ch and link to remember.org agree on the numbers with link to blackwellreference.com .
        Displaced Persons (DPs) and DP camps in central Europe 1945-1953
        At the war’s end an estimated 50,000 Jews were liberated from concentration camps in Germany and Austria.
        Displaced Persons (DP) Camps
        ‘’By the end of World War II, there were eight million persons who had been driven out of their native countries by the hostilities. By the end of 1945, as many as six million were able to return. There remained two million who were unable to be repatriated, and were put into Displaced Persons (DP) camps administered by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Among them were 50,000 Jews who had been liberated from the concentration camps.
        Of the 8 million “Displaced Persons/ DPs”. 6 million were resettled in original country. Of the 2 million left it included Poles, Czechs, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Croatians, Slovenians and Serbs and others who refused to return to regimes that were Communist and those still occupied by the Soviets. 450,00 of the 8 million DP’s were Jewish:
        In 1947 the International Refugee Organization was formed and between 1948 and 1950 the majority of the 450,000 Jews in camps for displaced persons emigrated from Europe to Israel, the US, and elsewhere.”

        (IOW, there were only 50,000 Jews who had been in camps at the end of the war and only 450,000 who had fled Nazi occupied countries and were living in others countries.)
        Only 1/16 of ALL DP’s were Jewish and the 8 million DPs does not even count the 12 million ethnic Germans that were transferred out of other countries back to Germany after the war. It is extremely doubtful that more than a handful of the real 50,000 Jewish camp survivors are still living today. It is even doubtful that even half of the Displaced Jews are still living today.

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 12:25 pm

        @ goldmarx
        Yeah, you really show it on this site.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 12:31 pm

        Annie: Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that the forces of “JudeoBolshevism” were out to do just that, as well as to the rest of the world.

        thanks goldmark, i had no idea.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 2:22 pm

        Goldmarx – – Jews historically often were much more mobile than the other residents of a given city or town, and much more willing to relocate in a different country.

      • James Canning
        March 21, 2013, 2:26 pm

        gamal – – Didn’t the “Sea peoples” settle in what is now coastal Palestine, to a larger degree than in what is now Lebanon?

      • Light
        March 21, 2013, 2:40 pm

        Just as I am a member of the Jewish people who is an American citizen, making me part of the American nation

        No, you are a US citizen who has a very confused view of citizenship, nationality, ethnicity and religion.

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 4:43 pm

        Roha: 1) Yes, I do believe the Jewish people has the right to self-determination. 2) I am a Jew, born of Jewish parents, both Holocaust survivors.

        The UNSCOP majority position flatly stated that Palestine could not be used to solve the problem of the displaced Jews of Europe or the Jewish Question. Although the UN Charter stressed the right of self-determination of peoples, Resolution 181(II) did not mention any Jewish right of self-determination. On the contrary, it held that the very sizable non-Jewish population of the so-called Jewish State had to be given equal rights and an equal share in the job of writing the Constitution and governing the territory. So the Holocaust was, and still is, irrelevant because two wrongs really don’t make a right. To suggest otherwise, just makes you look uncivilized and uncouth.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 5:04 pm

        “So the Holocaust was, and still is, irrelevant because two wrongs really don’t make a right.”

        It’s hardly irrelevant when you consider the reality in 1947, when hundreds of thousands of Jews were languishing in DP camps and the idea of Jewish state was gaining tremendous momentum.

        “To suggest otherwise, just makes you look uncivilized and uncouth.”

        Oh please. You speak as if international relations was as clean as a newborn baby’s behind. How many interethnic conflict have there been in the states created during the decolonization period? Was it right to create a separate India and Pakistan? Was it right to create a multiethnic Rwanda with two warring groups inside of it? Was it right to create a multiethnic Sudan? A multiethnic Yugoslavia?

      • gamal
        March 21, 2013, 5:42 pm

        yes peleset, tjeker, dnn, ekewesh, lukka, teresh, sherden all manner of folk, word is Egypt had been using them as mercenaries and got some pretty serious blowback, wouldnt know about settlement patterns but canaanites were all over beirut was a canaanite city, the sea people according to the records of the time like vikings ended up all over, many in Egypt and its sphere, which included most of Syria-Palestine, what difference does all this make?

      • Cliff
        March 21, 2013, 5:45 pm

        Latino Americans have a home country somewhere.

        Jews do not, because there was no Israel before 1948 but there were Jews.

        Jews were American citizens before there was an Israel.

        Not all Jews are religious Jews and not all Jews are born to two Jewish parents.

        There is no such thing as Jewish DNA because Jews are not a race.

        But still, someone can be born from Jewish parents and part if a Jewish family that goes back a long time.

        You could also convert to Judaism and become a Jew.

        None of these situations imply a singular identity and simply being a Jew does not mean that that Jew has a homeland. Especially a convert to Judaism.

        They convert based on religion.

        But before that they weren’t Jewish. They might have been Muslim or atheist or Buddhist.

        Why do they have a homeland all of a sudden?

        And why do the Palestinians have to pay down while people like you take their land?

        The Jewish people as a catchphrase and/or misnomer have no right to self-determination.

        The people of a land do.

        You weren’t born in Palestine. You were born in America. Your ancestors are either converts or immigrants from Europe. Just as most of the Jewish people who came to Palestine were not indigenous. They came from somewhere else and made a country on top of an existing population.

        I am curious, do you think Scientologists are a nation as well? What about Christians? Are all Christians part of a tangible territory they call the homeland?

        You are a phony and a thief.

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2013, 9:04 pm

        “1) Yes, I do believe the Jewish people has the right to self-determination.”

        On this site I have writen what amounts to lengthy essays about the absurdity of the notion of “the Jewish people” having the right to self-determination.

        I hope someone with a better grasp of the archives than I have will direct you to them.

        But just consider this. Do the Australians have the right to self-determination? If not, why not? If they do, does that include Australian Jews? If Australian Jews have the right to self-determination as Australians, and the right to self-determination as part of “the Jewish people”, they have the right twice over. The rest of us just have it once. What make Jews so special that they get it twice? Or should we just deny Jews the right as Australians. This would involve denying them the vote, the right to run for office, etc.

        Fair enough?

      • Shingo
        March 21, 2013, 9:36 pm

        When I think of American “people”, I think of the dominant ethnic US group, those who have been referred to as “WASPs”.

        That’s a bit like saying the dominant ethnic Israeli group are Russian Ashkenazi Jews and that not being one of them excludes you if you happent o be Sephardi or Mirachim.

        My sense of Jewish identity is best expressed by the Society for Secular Jewish Humanism

        In which case, it shouldn’t matter to you whether the dominant ethnic US group were “WASPs

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2013, 9:58 pm

        “3) When I think of American “people”, I think of the dominant ethnic US group, those who have been referred to as “WASPs”. I am not a “WASP”. My citizenship is American, nothing more.”

        This relates to the question about ‘belonging” that I asked above. (Were you trying to answer that with the stuff about “identity”?)

        So it seems for you a “people” is an ethnic group. Now what makes something an “ethnic group”?

        Descent from a small group of common ancestors? Jews don’t have that, and neither do Americans.
        Common language? Jews don’t have that, but most Americans do speak a language marginally similar to English.
        Residence in a specific geographical area? Jews don’t have that, but Americans do.
        Common traditions and holidays? Most Jews have quite a few common traditions, and so do Americans.

        So what is it that makes Jews a “people” (ethnic group) and Americans not a “people”?

      • goldmarx
        March 21, 2013, 11:19 pm

        Light: As a Jew, I have self-determination in Israel. I choose not to avail myself of it at the present time.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 1:03 am

        I have self-determination in Israel. I choose not to avail myself of it

        classic

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2013, 1:24 am

        Hey, I’ve tracked down the major section of my arguments about self-determination.
        Start here and you can just scroll down.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        Or you can take them one at a time.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        (This one includes the typo “and unrepented state”. It should have been “an independent state”, but the typo seems apposite for Israel.)

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        They are even better than I remembered.

        Damn, I’m good!

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:21 am

        The right to self-determination does not confer any material benefits per se, so having that right for two aspects of one’s identity is like – twice nothing is still nothing. Once nothing is also nothing, so there’s no unfairness.

        Material benefits comes with citizenships. An American Jew could only have dual citizenship if s/he maintained homes in both countries. If someone with only one citizenship is jealous, s/he can establish a residence and eventual citizenship in another country that allows dual citizenship. I am not aware of how that situation would work in Australia.

      • sardelapasti
        March 22, 2013, 3:24 am

        Gold – “I choose not to avail myself of it at the present time.”
        Translation: “I have it real easy here; tribal network provides for unheard-of perks over the normal population, nice job, easy money, I can do Zionist propaganda in total impunity and use tax money for it, when anyone protests all I have to do is start complaining about my hurt feelings.
        So why should I go there and just be one Meisterrasse guy among the many and risk getting hit by something, when in the States I am on top of the pile and everyone is obliged to kowtow to me? I’m not THAT crazy!”

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:31 am

        Shingo: I never claimed it ‘mattered’, I just stated it because I was giving my assessment on the meaning of ‘people’ in response to a poster who asked me.

        And actually, many Sephardim are known to complain about being excluded in Israeli society, so I don’t see how that undercuts my original point. Care to rephrase?

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:32 am

        Annie: And how is that ‘classic’?

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:41 am

        Roha: We Jews are descended from a small group of ancestors, ultimately from the Middle East. Common language – for Ashkenazic Jews, Yiddish; for Sephardic Jews, Ladino, liturgical language.

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:55 am

        Like most Jews, I take a dim view of Gentiles who think they know better than me who I am.

        Am I supposed to be automatically impressed by the fact that you have written “lengthy essays”?

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:58 am

        Cliff: “You are a phony and a thief.”

        Yeah, I love you too, sweetheart.

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 4:04 am

        The United Nations has issued some many resolutions that contradict each other that it has come like Scriptures: even the Devil can quote them. Do you really go by everything the UN has ever decreed?

      • Donald
        March 22, 2013, 9:24 am

        “As a Jew, I have self-determination in Israel. I choose not to avail myself of it at the present time.”

        That’s kind of a reductio-ad absurdum of the whole concept, isn’t it? Maybe you meant it that way. I mean, I could understand someone in Herzl’s day talking that way after the Dreyfuss trial and the pogroms in Russia or more so in the 30’s if one lived in Europe and could see to some extent how bad things were likely to get, but for an American Jew in 2013 you’re saying it’s a lifestyle choice, like whether you’re going to take up Tai Chi or or go vegan, shop at Whole Foods, or join a commune.

        Self determination as consumer choice in a decadent late capitalist society–maybe some grad student in sociology could write a thesis.

      • Light
        March 22, 2013, 1:09 pm

        Goldmarx

        As a Jew, I have self-determination in Israel. I choose not to avail myself of it at the present time.

        And you have no self determination in the US?

        Self determination is so important but you don’t ask for it in the US. It’s so important that you won’t live in Israel which supposedly gives it to you.

        The definition of a true Zionist, the guy who wants the other Jew to live in Palestine.

      • Light
        March 22, 2013, 1:16 pm

        Goldmarx,

        We Jews are descended from a small group of ancestors, ultimately from the Middle East.

        Read Shlomo Sands or link to phys.org

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 2:21 pm

        It’s hardly irrelevant when you consider the reality in 1947, when hundreds of thousands of Jews were languishing in DP camps and the idea of Jewish state was gaining tremendous momentum.

        It’s complete nonsense to forceably displace three-quarters of a million Palestinians and make them homeless refugees in order to accommodate the Jews who had been temporarily displaced by a war in Europe.

        I’ve pointed out here on many occasions that the conclusions contained in the 11th formal recommendation of the UNSCOP Commission majority report flatly stated that Palestine could not be used to solve the problem of the displaced Jews of Europe without seriously impacting its limited resources and violating the rights of its existing inhabitants. The report stated that the “Jewish Problem” was an international one, not a Palestinian one. The “momentum” you alluded to above is called “hasbara”. link to unispal.un.org

        FYI, the XVIIth ICRC Diplomatic Conference chaired by Folke Bernadotte adopted the drafts of the four Geneva Conventions in August and September of 1948. They required the repatriation of prisoners and displaced civilians after armed conflicts. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention does not suggest the creation of new States based upon ethnicity as a remedy for the problem of the displaced persons of Europe.

        The Jewish and Israel Lobbies voiced very loud objections to Obama’s Cairo speech because it suggested that Israel resulted from the Holocaust. link to breitbart.com

        You can’t have it both ways Hoppy.

      • hophmi
        March 22, 2013, 2:38 pm

        “It’s complete nonsense to forceably displace three-quarters of a million Palestinians and make them homeless refugees in order to accommodate the Jews who had been temporarily displaced by a war in Europe. ”

        Yes, if you like interpreting history anachronistically and out of context.

        “I’ve pointed out here on many occasions that the conclusions contained in the 11th formal recommendation of the UNSCOP Commission majority report flatly stated that Palestine could not be used to solve the problem of the displaced Jews of Europe without seriously impacting its limited resources and violating the rights of its existing inhabitants.”

        That’s nice. But it was. And to reverse it now would entail a tremendous injustice.

        “The report stated that the “Jewish Problem” was an international one, not a Palestinian one.”

        Again, that’s nice. It has no relevance today.

        “The “momentum” you alluded to above is called “hasbara”. link to unispal.un.org”

        Nonsense. See paragraph 66. “It was common knowledge that the people in the camps wanted to go to Palestine.”

        Recommendations (II), Chapter VI: “3. The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms. Regardless of the historic origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter promises and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and some 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political cooperation among them, whether voluntary or induced by constitutional arrangements.

        4. Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations.”

        As you’ve done before, you cite a long, long document with no specifics and you distort it because you know no one will check.

      • tree
        March 22, 2013, 2:50 pm

        I choose not to avail myself of it.

        Which means that you have self-determination right here in the good ole US. You actually have more “self-determination” than most US citizens do. You can decide here how to live your life, or you can “self-determine” to steal land from Palestinians in Israel if you like. What a racket.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 3:03 pm

        shorter hops: ‘That’s nice…Again, that’s nice. It has no relevance and i can afford to be a pompous arse cuz we won and you can’t touch me, so there. and btw, you cite too much’

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:33 pm

        Donald: “Self determination as consumer choice in a decadent late capitalist society–maybe some grad student in sociology could write a thesis.”

        They shouldn’t use me, because I would be a bad example. By “avail myself”, I meant not emigrating to Israel. As a supporter of the BDS movement, it would be absurd for me to do that.

      • hophmi
        March 22, 2013, 3:36 pm

        “shorter hops: ‘That’s nice…Again, that’s nice. It has no relevance and i can afford to be a pompous arse cuz we won and you can’t touch me, so there. and btw, you cite too much’”

        Oh please. It’s not that Hostage cites too much, it’s that he miscites and expects that no one will check his sources. He asserted, citing a UNSPAL report, that the desire of Jewish DPs to go to Palestine was “hasbara.” That is directly contradicted by what he cited. It wasn’t “hasbara,” it was a legitimately held desire by people who had just been through hell. Talk about callous.

        It’s become clear that people here are willing to believe whatever fits their political and intellectual predispositions. Not a surprise for political partisans.

      • goldmarx
        March 22, 2013, 3:37 pm

        tree: Wow, it sounds like you’re suffering from racket envy!

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 6:37 pm

        The United Nations has issued some many resolutions that contradict each other that it has come like Scriptures: even the Devil can quote them.

        Why don’t you try finding and quoting one that explicitly supports the position of Zionist trolls?

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 7:07 pm

        Nonsense. See paragraph 66. “It was common knowledge that the people in the camps wanted to go to Palestine.”

        But had no legal right to do so. The ones who did attempt to go to Palestine were declared illegal immigrants by the British government under the terms of the applicable Palestinian laws. They usually interned in DP camps elsewhere. Full Stop.

        As you’ve done before, you cite a long, long document with no specifics and you distort it because you know no one will check.

        The conclusions in the 11th recommendation of the UNSCOP Commission on the Jewish Problem are very specific and easily verified. They are only considered irrelevant by narcissistic Zionists, like yourself.

      • Hostage
        March 22, 2013, 7:45 pm

        shorter hops: ‘That’s nice…Again, that’s nice. It has no relevance and i can afford to be a pompous arse cuz we won and you can’t touch me, so there. and btw, you cite too much’

        The portion of the UNSCOP fact finding report regarding partition that Hophmi tried to quote as a rebuttal does not mention the Jews in European DP camps or recommend that they be brought to Palestine en mass.

        It is a fact that in every case in which the United Nations was involved, they employed all of the international law norms and customary practices developed in the inter-war years by the League of Nations. They deliberately avoided any forced population exchanges when existing states were partitioned.

        Prof. Li-ann Thio cites the cases of the Bosnian and Palestine partition plans and notes the common traits as: international supervision; regional economic integration; minority protection; plebiscites; and a partition. She cited the Palestine Partition Plan as an example of conditioning recognition of statehood on human rights, democracy, and minority protection guarantees. See the discussion on pages 97-98 and footnote 353 in Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005. link to books.google.com

        The right of displaced person to return to their homes was a specific requirement in both those cases.

      • talknic
        March 22, 2013, 8:48 pm

        So hop, when will Israel get out of non-Israeli territory? That IS the problem today….

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2013, 9:04 pm

        “The right to self-determination does not confer any material benefits per se, so having that right for two aspects of one’s identity is like – twice nothing is still nothing. Once nothing is also nothing, so there’s no unfairness.”

        Whenever I see the word “identity” I expect to see load of empty waffle surrounding it*. So far, my expectations have been fulfilled. (Not just in your posts.)

        The question I asked was “Why do Jews get the right twice, and other Australians only once?” You have not answered that. You have simply said it isn’t unfair.

        “Material benefits comes with citizenships. An American Jew could only have dual citizenship if s/he maintained homes in both countries. If someone with only one citizenship is jealous, s/he can establish a residence and eventual citizenship in another country that allows dual citizenship. I am not aware of how that situation would work in Australia.”

        But you are not claiming the right of self-determination in respect of citizenship. You are claiming it in respect of being a Jew.

        (*Except, of course, in my own book about the philosophical concept of personal identity.)

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2013, 9:09 pm

        “We Jews are descended from a small group of ancestors, ultimately from the Middle East.”

        Except for the large numbers of converts, and the Khazar input.

        “Common language – for Ashkenazic Jews, Yiddish; for Sephardic Jews, Ladino, liturgical language.”

        So, no common language. (And how many Mizrahi Jews speak either Yiddish or Ladino?)

        Tell me again what makes Jews an ethnic group and Americans not.

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2013, 9:14 pm

        “Like most Jews, I take a dim view of Gentiles who think they know better than me who I am.”

        Depending on what you mean by “who I am”*, this might suggest a closed mind.

        “Am I supposed to be automatically impressed by the fact that you have written “lengthy essays”?”

        No, you are supposed to read them and see my arguments about what groups can claim a right to self determination.

        (*This is usually another bit of meaningless waffle.)

      • goldmarx
        March 23, 2013, 5:06 am

        Roha: Both Ladino and Yiddish share lots of common words with Hebrew – and in both cases (Ashkenazic and Sephardic), the common liturgical language is Hebrew.

        The Khazar “input” was from the royalty of the Khazar nation, not from the masses, and the number of converts was never so large as to overtake the descendants from the Levant. Throwing Shlomo Sand in people’s faces doesn’t make it true.

      • goldmarx
        March 23, 2013, 5:18 am

        Roha: Why am I “supposed” to read them? Sense of entitlement, much?

        I don’t need a lecture about my right to self-determination anymore than a Palestinian needs one from Netanyahu.

      • goldmarx
        March 23, 2013, 6:02 am

        Roha: “But you are not claiming the right of self-determination in respect of citizenship. You are claiming it in respect of being a Jew. ”

        No. As an American national, I have the right of self-determination ‘in respect of citizenship.’ As a Jew, I have the right of self-determination in respect to Israel being my homeland, where if I chose to move there, I would become a citizen there. But for the US to ‘lose’ me, Israel must first implement the basic BDS principles.

      • Shingo
        March 23, 2013, 9:52 am

        Throwing Shlomo Sand in people’s faces doesn’t make it true.

        No need to throw it – Sands theory has been vindicated.
        link to ynetnews.com

        So yes, the Khazar input was significant.

      • Shingo
        March 23, 2013, 9:54 am

        As a Jew, I have the right of self-determination in respect to Israel being my homeland, where if I chose to move there, I would become a citizen there.

        So as Donald has pointed out, as an American Jew in 2013 you’re saying it’s a lifestyle choice, like whether you’re going to take up Tai Chi or or go vegan, shop at Whole Foods, or join a commune.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2013, 11:34 am

        The portion of the UNSCOP fact finding report regarding partition that Hophmi tried to quote as a rebuttal does not mention the Jews in European DP camps or recommend that they be brought to Palestine en mass.

        oh my

      • tree
        March 23, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Annie,

        “oh my…”

        Not only that, but the majority of Jews in DP camps chose to go elsewhere. There were separate camps for Jews, set up by the Americans to avoid friction between various ethnic groups after the War. The Jewish DP camps were allowed to develop their own leadership, which was mainly Zionist. As the Israeli historia Yosef Grodzinsky ponts out, in “In the Shadow of the Holocaust”, Zionist pressure was brought to bear on anti- or non-Zionist Jews in the camps. and there was a massive effort to forge signatures on petitions stating that the DP camp persons wished to go to Palestine.

        In the end most of them chose not to go to Palestine/Israel.

      • Hostage
        March 23, 2013, 4:43 pm

        As a Jew, I have the right of self-determination in respect to Israel being my homeland, where if I chose to move there, I would become a citizen there.

        No you do not. The right of self-determination has its bases in international law, not municipal laws. No international law ever recognized Palestine or Israel as “the homeland” of the Jews. In fact, a number of minority rights treaties and the preamble of the British Mandate recognized various Jewish groups as national ethnic minority communities with homelands that were located elsewhere.

        The League of Nations granted the Mandate to the Government of Great Britain, not the Jews. It always allowed the British to use immigration quotas to legally exclude Jews from Palestine. Non-indigenous Jews never had an unqualified right to legally enter the country or become citizens there.

        Furthermore, the leaders of the Zionist Organization made it clear that they were opting for incorporation into another existing State as the mode of exercising their right of self-determination. During the discussions of the arrangements held during the Versailles Peace Conference, the members of the Zionist Organization stated that the establishment of a Jewish national home did not require the establishment of a Jewish government. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The UN partition plan did not recognize the right of the Jews to self determination in a separate State of their own. The plan required the Jews living in the so-called Jewish State to adopt a democratic constitution which would give the sizable Arab population living in the territory equal rights and representation in the government. The UN plan did not authorize any forced population transfers or exchanges.

        The UN General Assembly responded to the requests and recommendations of the British government, the Jewish Agency, the Arab Higher Committee, and the UNSCOP that the Mandate be terminated. Under the explicit terms of the UN resolution Jews lost the right to move to the Arab state and become citizens there.

        In its own cases, the Israeli High Court ruled that rights granted under the international mandate had ceased to exist when it was terminated. See for example, CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950), link to elyon1.court.gov.il

      • Hostage
        March 23, 2013, 4:53 pm

        The Khazar “input” was from the royalty of the Khazar nation, not from the masses, and the number of converts was never so large as to overtake the descendants from the Levant. Throwing Shlomo Sand in people’s faces doesn’t make it true.

        Making assumptions about the genetic contributions of the Khazars without testing any ancient DNA or guessing about their unknown origins on the basis of the Turkic language that they spoke is unpersuasive too. Jewish communities have acquired dozens of languages, there’s no reason to suppose the Khazars couldn’t have acquired one too.

      • Hostage
        March 23, 2013, 5:35 pm

        So as Donald has pointed out, as an American Jew in 2013 you’re saying it’s a lifestyle choice, like whether you’re going to take up Tai Chi or or go vegan, shop at Whole Foods, or join a commune.

        No, the modes of exercising the right of self-determination can only be applied by a spatial entity capable of exercising terrestrial “jurisdiction”, not scattered social or ethnic groups. Jurisdiction is the only tangible manifestation of sovereignty and it resides in all the people inhabiting a territory. The difference between an “ethnic nation-state” and “ethnic diaspora-groups” is territorial integrity and jurisdiction. There is no way for the latter to “freely dispose of their natural resources” without violating the rights of the other inhabitants.

        Nations and States are spatial entities that include all of the inhabitants of a territory. Israelis are a nation, but Jews are only an ethnic group or groups scattered in miscellaneous countries. The territorial integrity norm can’t even be applied to the Jews of Israel, without creating an illegal apartheid state that excludes more than a million other lawful inhabitants.

      • RoHa
        March 23, 2013, 9:49 pm

        “Both Ladino and Yiddish share lots of common words with Hebrew – and in both cases (Ashkenazic and Sephardic), the common liturgical language is Hebrew.”

        Korean and Japanese share lots of common words with Chinese. (Many entered Korean from the Japanese version.) But the Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese do not have a common language.

        Arab Jews are Arabic speakers. They do not understand Yiddish or Ladino. And there are plenty of European and American Jews who do not understand those two languages, either.

        “the common liturgical language is Hebrew.”

        The common liturgical language of Catholics used to be Latin, but that did not mean that Catholics had a common language.

        “the number of converts was never so large as to overtake the descendants from the Levant.”

        Be that as it may, if you include the converts as part of “the Jewish people”, then being part of “the Jewish people” is not only a matter of ancestry.

      • RoHa
        March 23, 2013, 10:01 pm

        ‘Why am I “supposed” to read them? Sense of entitlement, much?’

        “Supposed to read” in the sense of “that is what I offered them for, not to impress you.”

        ‘I don’t need a lecture about my right to self-determination anymore than a Palestinian needs one from Netanyahu.’

        If Netanyahu give lectures on the right to self-determination I would urge Palestinians to listen to them. Ignoring them would be just a sign of a closed mind, a refusal to learn. Maybe N has nothing worthwhile to say on the topic, but one can only know that by listening.

      • RoHa
        March 24, 2013, 1:11 am

        “As an American national, I have the right of self-determination ‘in respect of citizenship.’ As a Jew, I have the right

        of self-determination in respect to Israel being my homeland, where if I chose to move there, I would become a citizen there.”

        I’ll leave aside the question of how Israel can be your homeland if you have never had a home there, and concentrate on the rsd issue.

        It looks to me as though you are saying that you have rsd as an American citizen, and that you could, if you chose, have rsd as an Israeli citizen. (And that you do not have that right now.)

        But this is rsd based on citizenship, not on ethnicity. All Israeli citizens, regardlessof ethnicity, have that right.

        And this is not the rsd that Levine is referring to.

        He is referring to two claims. The first is that all Jews, everywhere, belong to a collective group that has – and had before Israel was created – a right to set up a Jewish state somewhere. This right was claimed to be analogous to the alleged right of the Finns to set up a Finnish state in Finland. (See link to mondoweiss.net)

        The second (usually conflated with the first) is that the Jews of 1940s Palestine had a right to set up a Jewish state in Palestine even though they were living intermingled with a non-Jewish majority.

        It is those alleged rights of ethnic self-determination that I contest.

      • American
        March 24, 2013, 9:30 am

        ‘American People’ implies a deeper ethnic link, as I have already described, although sometimes politicians do get carried away and refer, poetically, to all US citizens as ‘the American people.’..goldmarx

        ‘American people” does not imply a ‘ethnic link”or a religious link between them.
        That’s the point in American , there aren’t suppose to be different levels of nationality/citizenship for Americans according to their ethnic group.
        But of course you don’t get that because you are ‘ethnic centric”, fixated on your ethnic self.

      • American
        March 24, 2013, 12:27 pm

        ‘The anti-Semitic spin on “nation” is that since Jews are a “nation”, they are a threat to seize the territory of ANY country in which they already happen to reside and make it their own (i.e. Jewish) nation, since two different nations can not exist in the same territory because something has to give. Historically, this was a rationale for anti-Semites to expel Jews from their own countries…goldmarx

        There was no anti semitic ‘spin’ that Jews wanted to take over by coup or some kind of force territory within the country they lived in….that’s ridiculous.
        Historically there ‘were’ complaints that Jews were more loyal to the &